[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 279 KB, 750x798, 81935413-748A-4425-B97C-2EACEBE0A135.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11873971 No.11873971[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

Whats some good nuanced political philosophy? I.E. philosophers that fully understands and is able to deconstruct those he does not agree with. No “bloody-boogymen-cultural-neo-marxists” stuff.

>> No.11873977

>>11873971
Some solid opinions there
*dabs*

>> No.11874379
File: 116 KB, 600x920, chomsky_lifemagazine.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11874379

>>11873971
the goat

>> No.11874388

>>11873971
Chomsky
Zizek too, but I think he trades realism for radicalism sometimes just to be interesting.

>> No.11874393

>>11873971
Centrists get the eternal fence.

>> No.11874431

I don't think I have any leftwing opinions. Universal healthcare can sound nice if you don't think about the economics of it but I understand that healthcare is a scarce resource and making any scarce resource "free" will drastically increase the demand and lead to rationing and/or price fixing which will decrease the availability and quality of healthcare.

>> No.11874451
File: 55 KB, 1000x565, 1537868876469.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11874451

>>11874431

>> No.11874464

>>11873971
Isaiah Berlin's one.

>> No.11874479

>>11874464
based, Quentin Skinner too.

>> No.11874490

>>11874431
This. One only need to compare the Canadian healthcare system to the American one. There's also a kind of perverse logic in allowing the choice for more expensive healthcare. A billionaire who spends hundreds of millions of dollars to extend his life by a couple years can effectively subsidize all the people who show up to the ER without health insurance.

>> No.11874511

Right-wing: Behead All Satans
Left-Wing: Bronze Age Mindset
Centrist: Fanged Noumena
Authoritarian: The Foundation for Exploration

>> No.11874876

>honor and take good care of those who serve

Yeah, nice "conservatism." Nobody who is assisting in propping up the democratic zeitgeist deserves honor. American soldiers aren't serving anyone but themselves because the western world is completely divorced from higher principles.

>> No.11874884

>>11874876
Based nigger poster

>> No.11874891
File: 83 KB, 1080x1171, GirlfriendsHusband.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11874891

>>11874876

>> No.11875170

>>11874490
Canadian here, what does American healthcare have that Canada doesn't?

>> No.11875192

Hegel

>> No.11875241

>>11873971
How are either opinions left or right wing? And also he is very naive about the national service

t.someone who was a conscript for 2 years

>> No.11876168

>>11874511
>Right-wing: Behead All Satans
i guess so. Looks like amazon banned it. crazy times.

>> No.11876175

>>11874511
Fuck off Sean.

>> No.11876183

>>11874490
>A billionaire who spends hundreds of millions of dollars to extend his life by a couple years can effectively subsidize all the people who show up to the ER without health insurance.
No he doesn't. That is not how hospitals work at all. If you don't know something, don't construct ridiculous opinions about it.

There's always private practice options, anyways. Even the UK, you can get private healthcare outside the NHS, which is what tons of rich folks do.

>> No.11876194

>>11873971
Why are all left wings transexual commies ?
What's a political party that won't make me look like a degenerate, a nazi or a delude man ?

>> No.11876203

I'd say Anton Pannekoek's councilism is a good counterpoint to V.I.Ulyanov's Taylorism and the Frontist tendencies without straying too far into infantile Left-deviationism.

>> No.11876222

>>11876194
>Why are all left wings transexual commies ?
idk, the hard leftists around me are the antifa guys and they basically live at the gym and listen to hardcore and drink vegan protein shakes. I'm pretty they are all retarded though.

>> No.11876231

>>11875241
National service might not be too bad

T. 3 years

>> No.11876920

>>11876194
Because the progressive idealolgy is inherently feminizing

>> No.11876934

>>11876194
Radical centrism

>> No.11876960

>>11874431

What a cuck.

>> No.11876998

>>11876168
What is it even about?

>> No.11877047

>>11874511
the gooch detected

>> No.11877070

>>11876920
that would imply the masculizing ideology is inherently regressive

>> No.11877083 [DELETED] 

>>11877070
>masculizing ideology
No such thing exists

>> No.11877087

>>11877070
In terms of what progressives want, anything that goes against them is by definition regressive.

>> No.11877099

>>11876960
Labeling a product or service a right doesn't mean it magically stops being a scarce resource.

>> No.11877112

>>11875170
We have significantly more medical innovation. A lot of it is more due to the nature of biotechs, and public capital through finance markets though.

But there are definitely a lot of positives to our model.

>> No.11877146

Muh free shit isnt going to mean much as long as living costs keep rising.

>> No.11877176

>>11877099

Paying more for an inefficient healthcare that doesn't get results is being a cuck. And you are. And you defend it. Get cucked.

>> No.11877194

>>11877176
I don't want to pay more for inefficient healthcare which is precisely why I oppose "free" universal healthcare.

>> No.11877197

>>11877176
>Paying more for an inefficient healthcare that doesn't get results is being a cuck.

you just described public healthcare lol

>> No.11877204

>>11877176
>Being poor

Lmao

>> No.11877206

>>11877194
>>11877197
Watch the bootlicker desperately flail for any piece of driftwood that looks sturdy enough to hold onto as his wife gets rammed by porky in the other room

>> No.11877216

>>11877206
b-b-but you are bootlicking the state

>> No.11877233

>>11875170
No waits.

>> No.11877243

>>11877206
still no argument from you to be found.

>> No.11877246

>>11877194

I live in Spain and we have universal free healthcare and it is very good. Americans: pay to lose.

>> No.11877252

>>11877243
>le not an argument argument
Not an argument

>> No.11877260

>>11877246
Would you like a pat on the head? I don't know what you're telling me for.

>> No.11877270

>>11877252
>What a cuck.

>> No.11877271

>>11877260

You say free good healthcare can't be done, I say it can and provide you with an example. You get retarded and cucked. Nothing new.

>> No.11877279

>>11877271
I didn't good universal healthcare couldn't be done. I said because of the way scarcity and demand work, "free" healthcare wil incur higher costs either in money, time, or quality of healthcare or a combination of all three.

>> No.11877284

>>11877279

But it doesn't, Spain spends less in healthcare per capita than the USA.

>> No.11877292

>>11877284
You're not listening to me. It could be completely true that they spend less in terms of dollars but that doesn't mean there isn't higher costs in terms of access or quality.

>> No.11877295

>>11877284
Spanish people have less health problems per capita than Americans

>> No.11877307

>>11877292

It's the second best healthcare ranked worldwide.

>>11877295

Not my problem. Get a better healthcare.

>> No.11877308

>>11877284
Ok how will it make healthcare cost less in america?

>> No.11877314

>>11877307
>It's the second best healthcare ranked worldwide.

Those rankings are useless because according to them a significant factor in what makes a healthcare system good is "universal" or government controlled it is. A better measure of the quality of healthcare is dollar votes, as in where people of means will go to get healthcare when their life is on the line. You'll find that when rich get sick they come to the US for treatment even though their home countries are higher rated.

>> No.11877335

>>11874431
Unironically read Mein Kampf (Stalag Edition). Hitler lays out why universal healthcare is needed in a beautiful way.

>> No.11877347

>>11877314
>people of means will go to get healthcare when their life is on the line.

That metric is fucking retarded. No surprise you are cucked.

>> No.11877366

>>11874431
>>11874490
'Free' healthcare can mean many things but as someone from the UK, how we have it implemented is very poor. France and Germany have much better systems (public insurance and private healthcare) but it should be means tested. There's no need to pay for those who can afford but we need to provide it to those who can't.

I have to say though as much as I hate the American healthcare system, everyone in world has them to thank as their pharma industry funds a lot of the research across the globe which wouldn't happen to the same degree without them around.

>> No.11877593

>>11877366
The NHS is currently in a dire state because it has been partially privatised via the top-down 'internal market' CCG scheme (which fragments treatment providers and promotes unnecessary bureaucracy) and systematically starved of funding via central budget cuts and, maybe most significantly, local government 'savings' that have come about as a result of swingeing cuts to council budgets.

>> No.11877816

>>11877233
I'd say that's a fair trade off. Waiting a bit at a hospital is not bad if I don't go into crippling debt

>> No.11877918

>>11877314
Why shouldn't universality be part of the metric? Even the best healthcare in the world is useless if nobody can use it

>> No.11877958

>>11877918
The problem is that the ranking don't measure quality of healthcare, or at least it's a very small factor in their rankings which is why I don't accept the rankings as a measure of the quality healthcare. If you want to say the rankings are a good measure of government control then I would accept that because that's what the rankings are actually measuring. The person I was responding to was treating the rankings as a measure of quality.

As far as the dollar cost of healthcare in the US goes I would agree that it's a problem but it's not because of any free market economics. Costs can be reduced drastically by carefully removing unnecessary regulations. An average doctor in the US could easily spend the majority of their day with regulation compliance and filling out redundant paperwork and that time is taken away from patients which what brings income to their business. Deregulation increases efficiency which lowers costs.

>> No.11878039

>>11877958
I think my point still stands though. I'm Canadian and I'm ok with having our doctors as it is free. Even if American doctors are better, the effect is negated by the inaccessibility of health care

>> No.11878072

>>11878039
I prefer system which is high quality and has high accessibility and I believe this is attainable through principled free market economics. A government system would necessarily have to sacrifice in one area to fulfill another, meaning if you want high accessibility you will have to sacrifice in quality or if you wants quality you has to sacrifice accessibility. This is because price controls can't provide the incentives that profit does to expand supply.

>> No.11878093

>>11878072
I get your point that you have to pick one or another, but you have to realize that the healthcare is still in fact quality healthcare even when free. Then you come to the question of how much you are willing to pay for things that other countries do for free, simply for marginally higher quality in some things

>> No.11878132

I would agree that the system in Canada can provide high quality healthcare to many people but they do this through rationing. Some people get denied or delayed treatment because they're deemed not worth treating. This decision to deny some people is necessary in a government distributed system because healthcare is a scarce resource. There's only so much medicine and doctors and hospital beds to go around and any time you make a scarce resource "free" you drastically increase the demand for it. You make a scarce resource even more scarce.

Those people who get denied treat or receive an injury from a delayed treatment aren't getting quality healthcare. A free market solution could enable us to treat everybody.

>> No.11878139

>>11878132
>>11878093

>> No.11878177

>>11877112
>medical innovation
Mostly based around biotechs, because of statefunding to fix up all the broken veterans litering the country, while the pharmaindustry creates new and better drugs, because they push the drugs so hard, that people develope resistances to them.

All the while rocking a system that has a high number of deaths that could've been prevented by a universal single-payer healthcare system.

If your positives are, that some get a very technically inovative product while others die, good job.

>>11877292
Being so deeply mired in cognitive dissonance.
The dude just gave you an example. And your arguement basically amounts to "But you don't see the full cost in those numbers". Which is completly false.
Seeing how we can see exactly why they are lower if you look into them.
It's because when you shift the burden of cost to a large mass of people, you end up with less money spend per capita, which is essentially what allows the system to be more just in regards to wealth.

You argue about, what if the acces longer though. Meaning you'd have to wait for a spot, when you need something very difficult done.
- Which is, by the way, a total strawmen erected by fucks like you, who never experienced a universal healthcare system - But the alternative is to never get that spot due to monetary reasons.
Which is why the US-system has so many amenable deaths.

You're jsut a cuck explaining to us, why it's more costefficient to be a cuck and die, rather than pitch in with everyone.

>> No.11878212

>>11877366
>their pharma industry funds a lot of the research across the globe

Please to point me to that, because last time I checked, most research gets funded by the taxpayer.
While the big pharmaindustrys just work on how to maximize profits by streamlineing production. Which is why we have mostly the same few agents being repackaged over and over again.
Because they don't give a fuck about alternatives to what exists now, but would rather continue to make money on what they know will make you addicted and leave you with a need for more and stronger meds.
>see working agents in meds
>change the composition around
>bring out new med to huge fanfair of docs who can cash in on selling them new "improved meds" instead of the more affordable once who work the same but won't get you cashrewards from a big pharma-company.

>> No.11878265
File: 355 KB, 1371x783, the_blind_leading_the_blind.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11878265

>>11878132
>A free market solution could enable us to treat everybody.

How?

How will a free market enable you to distribute this scarce ressource to everyone? You can't.

There is a reason why countrys with universal healthcare have a huge motivation to enact preventative medicine, as we see in a lot of these countrys.
While americas healthcare is only the favorite in one thing. Createing more disease to reap in profits on.

This is what you curiously leave out.
The inherent conflict between makeing something available to everyone who has a severe need for it and realizeing this with one focus in mind. Profitability.
Just like makeing money on basic needs and utility like roads and waterpipeing is utterly retarded, so is makeing healthcare completly privatized on a deregulated market.
Because someone who would be sick has no bargaining chip. Not even if he has money.
Unless you regulate it.

>Hey, I need heartsurgery.
>Sure, how much can you pay?

>> No.11878294

>>11878265
A free market system can enable us to treat everyone because unlike the system of government distribution there's a inbuilt mechanism to increase the supply of healthcare. Profit provides the incentive for people to become doctors, create more medicine, or build more hospitals. As the supply of healthcare rises relative to the demand, costs are reduced. A free market system wouldn't see the rationing necessary in a socialized economy.

>> No.11878356

>>11878294
>Profit provides the incentive for people to become doctors
Doctors allready have one of the best paying jobs available, yet we have a scarcity of doctors in most countrys, because not everyone who wants to be a doctor can become a doctor.
I guess enough demand will just make people smarter.
Or, more likely, we just make the requirements lower.

>A free market system wouldn't see the rationing necessary in a socialized economy.

And yet the biggest drawback of a singlepayer-healthcaresystem is that doctors prescribe meds and treatments that are not nessecarily needed but make them money. Basically profilactic treatments.

Only part that is scarse is literally things we can't yet synthezise. Like blood, organs and other bodily enzyms.
Which the free market won't find an answer to either, unless they lower the standards on what is ethically allowed to "create" those ressources. Like in the aquirement of precious ressources like lithium, which we get from 3rd world deregulated countrys.

I reiterate. You say they do. But literally every country with a deregulated economy with mostly private healthcare organizations, like a lot of 3rd world countrys where "humanitarian"-companys provide healthcare, are characteristic of one thing.
Cronyism, coruption and missmanagement of ressources.

And you still didn't tell me how a free market will balance out the moral issues of giveing someone the power of a subjects life without anything regulateing it.
Unless you mean that I can kill you if you won't treat me for a fair price. Because you will essentially kill me if I won't pay up.

>> No.11878553

>>11876183
>billionaire spends tens of thousands at hospital
>hospital doesn't invest that in new equipment
k

>> No.11878714

>>11877593
The NHS has such terrible bureaucracy because it's a public company. Whenever they try to make any cuts the people who are deciding where the cuts are coming from are the people who should be cut (middle managers, needless committees) and it always falls on the people at the bottom, the nurses.

The funding issue will always be there, the NHS is literally a black hole, the more money you throw at it, the more it will spend and need in the future, particularly with the way healthcare is nowadays. There are loads of expensive medicines and operations they don't offer but would if it had more money. Don't think that money would be spent sensibly because they have no motive to do so.

There are two good funding methods I have seen around the world; public insurance and private healthcare or if they are both going to be public, funding needs to remain unpoliticised. National insurance should be a separate pot from governmental income and should be managed by a third party (which allows it to be invested, etc). This has worked in Scandinavian countries but they also have a lot of oil and tax from overseas shipping companies.

>>11878212
Do you have any concept of how expensive and hard it is to get a new drug to market? It may take decades of work from the spark of an idea that something may be beneficial and get make it marketable (ie. actually works and is safe for the general pop.) and after all that it might be useless. Sure, tax incentives and grants help but a large bulk comes from private companies and allows for research outside of what governments might believe are beneficial.

>similar drugs are useless
This is such a stupid opinion. If you have something that works you should continue research into that chemical and chemical structures to find cheaper, more potent, less side effects or new uses.

>> No.11878927

>>11878356
I don't support his entire argument but you are conflating the terms 'free-market' and 'american-market'. America isn't that free, Singapore would be a better example.

>more money won't make more doctors
How about investment in education, scholarships or overseas talent scouting/financing?

>doctors seek to maximise profits from patients in single payer-healthcare systems
Whilst there is an element of this, the problem is more cultural. 100 years ago doctors were only there for serious injuries and illnesses but now the scope of what is treatable has grew massively and because something "is" treatable with a quick and easy solution they take it over the difficult one. For example, anxiety would never be a thing to go to their doctor about in the past but now you do. Do these people want to change their diet, exercise and sleep better? Nope. Do they want an expensive therapist to drill into their biggest fears and help them heal the emotion issue over the course of years? No, they want the instant fix so they beg for drugs. This cultural shift may be a result of capitalism (more likely abundance) but the desire comes from the patients just as much as the doctors.

Also, every doctor can't have an in-depth knowledge of the millions of variations of diseases. They tend to recommend based on the advice they are given. Specialists and further research cost a lot of money.

>only scare resources are blood, organs, etc
You mean other than buildings, land, hospital equipment, medication, doctors, nurses, literally time. All these things need to be managed effectively.

>free market can't solve lack of organs and blood
What are 3d printed organs from stem cells? synthetic blood?

>shitty African countries provide shitty healthcare
No shit, the 'communist' African countries are just as corrupt. You are comparing countries with lots of

>deregulated profit seekers are the reason drugs, etc are expensive
In a wholly free economy (it can't exist but just imagine), patents wouldn't be a thing. One company couldn't horde a drug and reap its high return because someone else would just start producing it for cheaper until it hit the magically supply/demand line where you couldn't actually get it cheaper without spending more money than it's worth. This is baring in mind that multiple companies would be producing it and competing for contracts with multiple healthcare providers.

>regulation is great
America's healthcare system is not deregulated, it is heavily regulated but poorly implemented.

>socialist healthcare systems are great
I believe that a socialist health care system would be great a providing a static level of care. They would continue to provide that level of care and hopefully become more efficient over time. Though would struggle with improving that level and offering new medication and operations since there is no impartial metric to govern value.

>> No.11878965

Left Wing: Accelerationism
Right Wing: Traditionalism
Libertarian: Low tax
Authoritarian: Single Benevolent Monarch