/sci/ - Science & Math

Post on /b. It won't cure stupidity, but at least you'll be among your own kind.

Oh, and take your MoveOn.org propaganda cartoons with you.

>>2700465

Somebody apparently convinced you that your opposition to healthcare was correct. How cute. You said it with such surety!

I'm not against health care; I'm against bogus health care programs that are used as a front for race hatred, class warfare, and wealth redistribution.

I'm against all healthcare, the world is way overpopulated.

>>2700495
said the very young person who's never had any real health problems

Nice /int/ cartoon, although not the funniest.
I fail to see how america is "terminal" or "sociopathic", much less "stupid" (What country are you from? It seems to me that people come from all over the world to go to AMERICAN universities, dumbass; only a few British ones even compete)

There are many problems with socialized healthcare in America: it defeats our deeply held beliefs in small government, part of what created the country in the first place. Not to mention, in such a large country the implementation is much more difficult.

So, cocksucker, take your bullshit elsewhere. Sage for not non-science crap.

>>2700492

You still sure about that wealth redistribution thing?

tbh, its not really wealth that's the problem, its that wealth tends to grow exponentially at the expense of the poorfags.

>>2700511

They're not targeting the rich anyway; just the middle class.

>>2700516

Protip: the people who want public healthcare and the people doing union-busting are not the same.

Why are people posting in this thread? It has nothing to do with science. If you're going to respond, at least use "sage", and be sure to include the proper amount of condescention to a presumably liberal arts major.

Sociopathy is the future of the human race.

>>2700535
fuck me

>>2700524

The people who want public HC are largely campus Marxists. Your point?

Dammit all I asked about was how to cure stupidity. I thought this was /sci/, not /new/. I must have gotten lost and ended up at 4ch0n.

Can you honestly go half an hour without a random shitstorm?

We Americans worship the rich. We all want to be rich, and have decided that idolatry of the rich is the next best thing. The rich in this country are getting richer because the voters permit, even encourage this.

There is no cure.

>>2700545
>>2700545
Dammit all I asked about was how to cure stupidity.

get a better education system.

>>2700542

100% bullshit. The people who want public healthcare are those who have SEEN how ineffective the private healthcare industry is.

I grew up with a sister with a disease called Freiderich's Ataxia. This disease robbed her slowly of all her muscle functioning and required that she get a heart transplant at seven years old. You know what the private industry did for my sister? They put my parents into debt that they will NEVER get out from under. They will be paying back greedy capitalists until the day they die. This was with 99% of all medical costs covered. If my father ever stops working, his insurance will cease and my sister will either die, or my parents will have to become even more poverty stricken and maybe even file bankruptcy, in which case my sister may die anyway.

You know who the private healthcare industry serves? It serves fucking rich people. Screw everyone in this thread who thinks a corporation should decide who gets care and who does not. A public system is one in which care is not denied from one person and people are not PUNISHED FOR AN UNCONTROLLABLE GENETIC DEFORMITY.

>>2700563
At least you can sue a corporation. As opposed to the government, who could decide who lives and dies with no legal consequences.

>>2700568

Really? What exactly would we sue the corporation for? Charging too much? Afraid not friend. They control the market completely. They say it costs 20,000 fucking dollars to get a surgery? YOU PAY OR YOU DIE.

A public system does not deny it to you. It says "very well, you just may need to wait so we can process you." Anyone would prefer the statement "Wait and we will pay for everything" over the private industry's "Wait anyway and you will pay thousands of dollars for care then pay tens of thousands more buying the drugs that we have also marked up."

what all you fags forget is that all of the medical innovation is occurring in the united states. you NEED a fluid healthcare market so that the insurance industry can negotiate with the medical care industry and make sure money goes to the right players. You need someone that has a vested interest in exposing fraud and ineffective practices. have you ever worked for the government? nobody gives a SHIT about waste. you need the agility of the market to allocate resources most effectively. the USA is great because we are so economically liberal and this is the world's capitalist testing ground for innovations and ideas. if you want to be pampered by some pussy government and suckle from the tit of US innovation then by all means move to europe. but don't drag down the greatest in our country by wasting time on the lazy, incompetent, and weak.

>>2700563

Either that or they think America should be like Sweden while having no understanding of how that country works or why its system would not work in the US.

>>2700568

> At least you can sue a corporation. As opposed to the government, who could decide who lives and dies with no legal consequences.

Uhm, yes you can sue the government?

>>2700598

Why wouldn't the Swedish system work here?

>>2700605
I think he's talking about beaners and other unmentionable colored people

>>2700605

Many reasons.

>>2700598

Sweden's system won't work in the US because it will require people to stop believing that people choose to be sick, poor etc because 'they want to live a life of sin and laziness'.

>>2700592

Right, because the US is such an innovator in the sciences.

Oh wait, that's the biggest load of shit that has been said in this entire thread. You know why the US appears to be the big innovator? Because they are willing to buy elaborately overpriced machines and make more and more of these elaborately overpriced devices and drugs. This must be great for the top 1% of the population who lives on a motherfucking cloud and can buy whatever they want. But the rest of everyone in society lives in the reality of the situation.

America's private healthcare industry provides nothing substantial that can be weighed against the horrendous damage it does to its people and the disservice to its record of respecting human health. You know what would happen to the world if the US created a public healthcare system? Not shit. The only thing that would happen is that Americans could get real, humane health care and not be enslaved to the fickle and greedy wants of corporations.

>>2700612

Well spit out a few then

>>2700611

How? One second, Fox News are reporting about how the Muslim immigrants have taken over Sweden, and the next one whatever they do works because they have a homogeneous society?

>>2700619
That's a terrible argument. So it doesn't matter how much money a person can spend on healthcare, they should get the same treatment as everyone else? Yes, there are expensive treatments, but the important thing is if they work. If the cure for cancer is a million dollars at first, then they should be able to get it. Prices may be high at first, but you shouldn't deny someone treatment because it's not "fair." I'm sure the rich guy appreciated the treatment.

>>2700623
Isn't Fox News wonderful? It's almost artful the way they disgrace journalism.

>>2700568
You can sue the government you retard.

>>2700632

Actually, cures are very rarely so expensive, when the markups of pharmaceutical companies are removed.

Nationalize big pharma as well as the hospitals and that problem's solved.

>>2700632

>So it doesn't matter how much money a person can spend on healthcare, they should get the same treatment as everyone else?

Yup, you got the point quickly! This is what we call 'fairness.' Disease does not sit around and wait for your income.

>Yes, there are expensive treatments, but the important thing is if they work.

Ah, definitely correct. With that in mind, every first world country with public healthcare has perfectly effectual systems which keep their citizens much healthier than those of Americans. The United States has one of the unhealthiest first world societies on Earth. So with that in mind, the important criteria -whether the healthcare system works- the US has failed miserably.

>If the cure for cancer is a million dollars at first, then they should be able to get it. Prices may be high at first, but you shouldn't deny someone treatment because it's not "fair." I'm sure the rich guy appreciated the treatment.

No, everyone should be able to get it. What the fuck does it matter if they are rich or not if they have CANCER? Cancer isn't like "cool, you're super poor and can't afford treatment? I'll just wait until the price drops" Rugged Individualists need to have a reality check. Disease, sickness, and injury does not care about what your tax bracket is.

>>2700650
Yeah, let's make the pharmaceutical companies as inefficient, bloated and worthless as NASA, social security, and the military.There's nothing that drives prices down like bureaucratic waste.

>>2700619
are you retarded? almost all of the best universities in the world are in the US, and almost all of them are private (except for like berkeley, etc.) Liberals have developed this absurd mantra of the "evil rich people", as if they're hoarding gold coins in a fucking silo to swim in. Their money doesn't sit around, it gets invested in industries that power our economy. It goes to banks that loan it out to the guy that wants to start a small business or to pursue so R&D in his existing plant. do you know how much fucking red tape you have to go through to get a government grant to do any research? The income disparity is what allows investors to take bigger risks in funding the next great idea.

>>2700655
>Yup, you got the point quickly! This is what we call 'fairness.' Disease does not sit around and wait for your income.
Don't know what country you live in, but here people must get at least basic healthcare insurance, but can also get private healthcare insurance (if they are willing to pay more), and people can blatantly pay for more expensive treatment.
This is what we call fairness combined with freedom.

>>2700665

'liberal'

The term is 'socialist'. Know your politics.

>>2700448
Shutdown FAUX news
It literally makes it viewers fucking retarded

>>2700669

Know what I call it? I call it putting money ahead of human lives.

Fucking sickos.

>>2700623

>Well spit out a few then

1. We've been defending Europe since 1945. Since we have to spend all our money on the military because of that, we can't afford a welfare state

2. Sweden is a small, ethnically homogenous country. The US is a big, highly diverse country, so we don't have the social cohesiveness they do

3. Americans by nature have a highly independent streak about them and tend to dislike the idea of a paternalistic government

4. Countries like Sweden still believe in manufacturing, unlike us

5. Sweden's government practices fiscal responsibility and doesn't run up massive deficits

6. Many European countries have laws in place to curb abuse of their health care system. Such laws are impossible in the US because they would engender the hostility of the Trial Lawyers' Association and other big supporters of the Democrat Party

>>2700675
Everybody gets a basic treatment, but some pay more to get the "advanced" package. What's wrong with that. If I have a zillion dollars I should be able to pay for top of the line treatment. Some people have more money, deal with it. You can't force everyone to be equal.

>>2700675
How much would you spend to save a person?
Would you spend $1 million? $10 million? $100 million? Where you draw the line appears to be different than those who who actually study the economics of this closely -- the ones in the industry that are trying to balance the fucking books. this nebulous idea of throwing a shit ton of money just to save one more precious human life is the epitome of childish naivite.

>>2700683

>If I have a zillion dollars I should be able to pay for top of the line treatment.

Why? All I'm hearing from you is more money = better person in which case, go back to watching Jersey Shore, faggot.

>>2700683

> If I have a zillion dollars I should be able to pay for top of the line treatment

But WHY

>>2700683

How about we ensure that the zillion dollars is taxed like a motherfucker, thus granting thousands more the healthcare they need?

Healthcare should discriminate on *need* not wealth. How the fuck you think being rich gives someone the moral right to have better healthcare is beyond me. EVERYONE should have good healthcare.

>>2700688

>why do rich people get comfy private jets and I don't? Are they better people than me? We should all be given private jets.

it's called economics, stupid. money is what we use to allocate scarce resources.

>>2700686

Ah, economics. You know, a generally well-recognized solution to wastage in a vital service is to make it non-profit, saving a huge and worthless expenditure.

Capitalistfags will never go for it though; despite their talk of efficiency. go figure.

>>2700692
Because doctors would like to have a zillion dollar as well?

>are you retarded? almost all of the best universities in the world are in the US, and almost all of them are private (except for like berkeley, etc.)

Did I say that all private industry was supposed to be illegal? I said that the HEALTHCARE INDUSTRY should be public.

>Liberals have developed this absurd mantra of the "evil rich people", as if they're hoarding gold coins in a fucking silo to swim in. Their money doesn't sit around, it gets invested...

And apparently you have developed an absurd mantra of 'benevolent rich people.' You really think that wealth trickles down like that? You think the top 1% of earners aren't sitting on a mountain of money? You're still stuck in the 80s before all of that absolute bullshit was disproven by its utter failure to produce a stable economy. All this idea of the benevolent super-capitalist benefactors gave us was a nation with one of the most frightening wealth disparities in existence.

>do you know how much fucking red tape you have to go through to get a government grant to do any research? The income disparity is what allows investors to take bigger risks in funding the next great idea.

Possible outcomes of taking risk as a corporation:
You succeed greatly. In this occasion, no one denies that there is great reward to be had for a corporation.
You succeed a little. In this occasion you did not get any real heads up and just spent a lot of money on RnD that did not have much output. One thing is for sure, no matter if you succeed a great deal or only a little, you do not get any sustained reward for it because now your competitors can just copy your idea!
You fail a little and make no money back. Your competitors are now ahead of you AND you're in the hole. Plus the public and economic perception is that you made a stupid decision.
You fail a great deal and maybe bankrupt your company for taking the risk. Now your competitors have completely ousted you.

>>2700692
Rich people have better cars, better tv's, better houses. Healthcare is no different.
>>2700688
I'm not saying money makes you a better person, I'm saying if you have you should be able to spend it. What's the point of money if you can't spend it?
>>2700695
You're nothing more than a petty thief. You're not Robin Hood, you're more like a crackhead in a dark alley with a shank, only more self-righteous.

>>2700696

>healthcare = luxury

Oh okay I see. Well, may true disaster never strike you or anyone you love. Moving on class.

>>2700683
You're completely missing the point. When it comes to health care everyone SHOULD and CAN be equal. It's adding financial stratification where it doesn't need to be.

>>2700702
>Making healthcare non-proft
>Implying it's a profit organization in every country
I am this guy:
>>2700669
So you can get more healthcare with more money in my country AND hospitals are non-profit organizations.
Let me formulate that in terms your small mind may comprehend. The excess money goes to poor peoples treatments.

>>2700714
food is not a luxery, like healthcare
are you arguing I'm not allowed to eat expensive food now, because others don't have any?

>>2700711
>Wanting to help more people have good lives by taxing those who have vast excess makes you a dirty shank wielding crack head.
You're the worst kind of person. You're a detriment to your species.

>>2700715
No, they shouldn't. People are only equal under the law. Healthcare is a business, and I deserve to be healthier than some bum on the street.

>>2700711

Question: are you a member of the ruling class or are you sucking their ass in hopes of one day joining the ranks of private jet owners if you only work hard enough?

>>2700711

Oh totally. And while we're at it, let's just give rich people better police officers, better firemen, better schools, better libraries, better water treatment facilities, better electricity grids, better streets, better highways! I mean, they have money so they deserve to be treated like they're more important and more deserving humans, right? Who needs EQUALITY in public services. What we need is the better ability of the wealthy to live in a luxury wonderland!

DISEASE DOES NOT CARE ABOUT YOUR MONEY. Human suffering is the point here.

>>2700728
Why? No one has an objective entitlement to anything.
Shit like this is ruining earth for the rest of us. What a cunt.

>>2700722

How expensive we talking here?

The problem isnt a scarcity of resources, its the distribution of those resources. There is a global surplus of food, which some poorfags simply can't afford.

>>2700743
If person A is willing to do something for money, and person B is willing to pay that money, A is allowed to do something for B.
That includes doctors, surgeons, etc.

>>2700722

No, because having expensive food doesn't ensure a better quality of life. Having proper nutrition shouldn't be a luxury, excess should be. Hence why we have a fuckton of government food programs.

Faggot.

Also, I have jury duty in an hour so I bid you adieu. I'll let the other ones here continue to rip apart your awful arguments.

>>2700739
Fire and police are paid with taxes though. And technically I can hire a bodyguard if I want.
>DISEASE DOES NOT CARE ABOUT YOUR MONEY.
But doctors do. If I'm willing to pay more, I get to live longer. Everybody dies dude, some people can afford to live longer.

>>2700746
You can turn a scarcity into a surplus by asking for more money.
In other words, by allowing some richfags to spend milions on doctors, the profession gets richer, and more attractive. Same for farming.

>>2700747
Are you implying that doctors don't get paid in universal health care systems? Face it, you might be wrong. Maybe, just maybe, it might be better for everyone to have equal access and quality of health care. I know these are those CRAZY liberal ideas you've been told to stay away from, but you might benefit.

>>2700748
I'm neither arguing against public healthcare, nor against government food progams.
Lrn2fuckingread.
I'm saying, if I'm willing to pay more than minimum, I should get more than basic. Which some people seem to thing HURRDURR EVERYONE IS EQUAL is a proper response to.

>>2700751
Yeah, because all throughout history we've witnessed the tremendous success of "trickle down economics". . . OH WAIT.

>>2700755
I'm not implying that at all.
Nor am I arguing against, or afraid of public healthcare. You're using strawmen here. I'm arguing against full equality, not against basic human right to medical care.

>>2700764
I'm not talking about wealth trickling down. I'm talking basic economics. Offering more money works to get stuff done. Try it sometimes.

>>2700755
Why can't you admit you're wrong? The rich should have better healthcare then the poor, because they're PAYING more. You just want the rich and poor to die together because of your own self-righteousness. You can't possibly imagine someone would actually put their own self-preservation above another's. If I can pay, I get better treatment. The doctor gets more money too. Everyone's happy. In NO way have I affected another person's life.

>>2700709

Our universities are where our medical research is done. only about 1/4 of the funding comes from government, the rest is private (biomedical companies, device companies, etc.)

rich people don't "sit on a mound of cash". all of it is invested somewhere. it's in the banks which make the loans, or in stocks of other companies that need the capital to grow. this has nothing to do with benevolence, but them wanting their money to grow. on the other hand, take a look at the bill and melinda gates foundation and see what having that much cash can do.

Evolution works by some mutation that is usually neutral or bad being weeded out while the rare good mutations get passed along. such a process made you and I, and such it is in the marketplace of ideas. It works.

>>2700773

What about some kind of reduced inequality such that a few billionaires dont own half the world?

>>2700750

Spoken like a true sociopath. Or is it, psychopath? A sociopath has no Theory of Mind and therefore cannot understand the suffering of others. A psychopath has a great Theory of Mind, he just doesn't care about the suffering of others.

All you just said, in a nutshell is "the current system favors the rich so that they get to have healthcare better than their fellow countrymen." You didn't say why this should be the case given that every single first-world country on Earth and even some third world countries have already instituted a public healthcare system and it is more effectual at reducing negative health consequences than the one we have. Look at this: http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

We are in THIRTY SEVENTH PLACE. We are not leading the world in healthcare. That puts us behind places like Costa Rica, Iceland, Oman, and San Marino. We are inspiring no one, we are offering nothing useful. What exactly attaches you to a system that has failed on every conceivable level besides a lack of empathy for others or some sort of misguided worship of the rich?

>>2700780
You'd be correct if that didn't create a stratification in health care. When you open that possibility then certain treatments start to become "only for the rich". We're not talking about jet ski's or big screen tv's, this is medical care and should be equally and wholly available to the entire population, not just those who can afford it. While it's obvious that blatant luxuries go to those who can afford it, I don't consider health care a luxury, I consider it an obligation of the system.

>>2700739
Hahah. Ironically, those things ARE better because their property taxes can pay for it. I can deal with that.

>>2700790
Again, you can use this argument for food, drinks, housing and education. I'm hoping you won't actually do that.

get rid of niggers=problem solved

>>2700798

>Again, you can use this argument for food, drinks, housing and education. I'm hoping you won't actually do that.

No, you could use this argument to claim that everyone should be guaranteed minimum food, drink, and shelter. But you could not use it to argue that they be afforded the absolute best of each of these, because that is not necessary for their minimum survival.

Healthcare is nothing like these things you've listed because if you have a debilitating disease, you cannot simply survive on the minimum healthcare. It's all or nothing. Disease is not like hunger or thirst.

>>2700790

>Special Pleading

Also, luxuries make for a more stress-free, comfortable, and healthy life, you know. Why shouldn't we fund them, too?

>>2700784
Why can't socialist use any arguments besides appeals to emotion? Empathy isn't required by law. You can't force me to care about the welfare of the poor.

>>2700790
The problem is, you've taken away rights in the effort to make people equal. You think you're bringing the poor up, but you're just bringing the rich down to their level. Equal healthcare means it's impossible to get better treatment. If I can afford new, experimental treatments I should be able to pay for them. Saying the rich shouldn't be able to afford better healthcare is murder in a way, because I can't use an expensive option simply because not everyone can have it.

It amounts to elemenatry school where the teacher asks, "Did you bring gum for the rest of the class?"

>>2700812
Would you be willing to spend $50,000,000 to save someone, if that was the "bare minimum" for them to survive?

>>2700818

Law IS EMPATHY. The social contract is a construction based upon the admittance of human value and the right to have it upheld. Murder is illegal because we hold an empathic connection to the plight of those who may be murdered. The same goes for theft, rape, and any other reasonable social infraction you can conjure up.

The attempt to rip empathy out of the social contract is not only misguided, but malevolent. Why don't we just abolish murder laws?

>>2700812
OK, you get to spend 1M government money. You think it's better spend on some white middle class guy who can't afford his cancer treatment, then it is to spend on feeding 100,000 poor africans in a war-area or disaster struck city?

>>2700818

>>2700818
Troll?

>>2700821

Yes, given that this cost was evenly distributed throughout the tax burden of the entire nation. That's the point. Some people will spend their entire life just getting a cold from time to time. Others will be born with Muscular Dystrophy. By spreading the weight out over the entire tax structure, everybody gets what they need.

But to be honest, your argument is not very useful. You could reform it to any amount you want, regardless of whether that amount is realistic or not. I mean, you already used an utterly unrealistic hyperbole.

>>2700818
>>2700818

>>2700830
It's not a fucking empathic connection you clod, murder is illegal because people are willing to pay the government (through taxes) for a service (not being killed). We're not trying to make murder victims feel better or some shit, we're just not trying to get killed.

"The social contract" doesn't have any necessarily empathetic features, and even if it did, that wouldn't imply that those features were desirable or necessary.

>>2700465
>MoveOn.org propaganda cartoons

I don't even know what that site is but I doubt they'd approve of the gay sex and tentacle monsters raping men that this artist draws.

Fix public education system. Give college students free study, but they pay the debt off later (similar to what they do in Australia). Teach critical thinking in schools.

>>2700851
>>2700843
>>2700836
Samefag claiming troll when he's losing the argument.

>>2700830
Law is base on rights, not morals or empathy. Murder is an infringement on your right to life, so it's illegal. Emotion is irrelevant.

>>2700860
>Give college students free study, but they pay the debt off later

That's not free so much as a loan, then.

Mind you though that if the interest is near prime, then I approve.

>>2700853

>It's not a fucking empathic connection you clod, murder is illegal because people are willing to pay the government (through taxes) for a service (not being killed). We're not trying to make murder victims feel better or some shit, we're just not trying to get killed.

Murder being illegal has nothing to do with taxes. Before taxation existed, government enforced murder laws. In fact, before official governments existed, societies enforced murder laws. But to be honest, it looks like the real issue here is that you have no idea what empathy even means. Empathy does not mean 'an emotional connection.' It is the act of putting yourself in someone else's shoes in order to assess the best course of action. This is basically an exact description of what the rule of law is.

>>2700875
>Before taxation existed, government enforced

Government did not enforce shit because it did not exist without taxation, you ignorant simpleton.

>>2700830
what?no
that's just silly,the social contract functions out of self interest. we make murder, theft, and rape illegal cause we ourselves don't want to be murdered, raped or robbed, and also because we want a society stable enough for us to prosper in.
Not to say I don't believe in altruism and empathy, but you can't expect everyone in society to, its impractical.

for the record I'm only arguing against applying emotion to the law which i believe to be incredibly dangerous, I do believe in eventually implementing universal health care, but only because it creates a more stable society in the long run.

>>2700888
maybey he's talking about pre-neolithic tribes and clans.

Guys...empathy /= emotion.

>>2700875
>before taxes
>government
The fuck am I reading? How did they get revenue to exist? As for your appeal to primitive societies enforcing murder laws, I'll point you to the (typical) example of ancient Athens: it was regarded as the duty of the family to avenge murder victims. Do you understand what that means? It means your bullshit is just wrong. People never altruistically hunted down murderers for the sake of strangers in the same society. Any shunning of murderers/thieves/whatnot was out of a realization of their untrustworthiness.

You don't know what empathy means, fuckhead. Empathy is not a calculation of courses of action. It fucking literally means "feeling the same." It's specifically an emotional connection.

I guess it was news to the posters in this thread that revenue can be made in government without taxes. It's called war.

>>2700902

Empathy: Empathy is the capacity to recognize and, to some extent, share feelings (such as sadness or happiness) that are being experienced by another semi-sentient being.

Does not mean 'feeling the same.' My god there are some arrogant people in here.

>>2700906
wars require money and resources before you start waging them.

>>2700916

No, it just requires people who will murder for you.

>>2700448
>America bigger, stronger, and more attractive than the other countries

I see nothing wrong with this

>>2700921
which is a resource that requires some form of currency or goods to finance.

>>2700906
The government still needs to collect property from people to exist. If we consider the spoils of war as not undergoing a property transfer (enemy -> the public -> the government) then we are left with the question of why the government still helps out the public.
>>2700912
No, it only means to share. To recognize is called "sympathy." Knowing what words mean is not arrogance.

>>2700934

I'll just spare you the embarrassment by giving you the link to the definition that was posted: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathy

I didn't make that up. I just knew the correct usage of the word from the beginning and you were stubborn. In any occasion, this is a total sidetrack from any discussion that was present in this thread.

The social contract is due to human empathy, the ability to recognize feelings in others. It should be said that the sense of human empathy probably IS derived from some means of self preservation in an evolutionary sense. But, proximately, empathy is the cause of the social contract and the form of legislation in government.

It's not like this is a mindblowing concept, except maybe to a right-winger. We have been making private industry functions public for many thousands of years now, at the rate at which they appear to function better when handled by a government and benefit the wellbeing of the populace. Healthcare isn't even the next on the list, it's ALREADY been adopted as a public institution by most prosperous nations. The United States is simply behind the curve.

Just going to leave this here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_system#Cross-country_comparisons

Those intelligent enough to read might understand what is wrong with the system that produces these numbers

>>2700953
Here, I'll post a definition, too. Identification with another's situation, feelings, and motives. There is no immutable source for what it means.

No, the social contract isn't based on empathy, especially when we define empathy as "the ability to recognize other people's feelings." Perhaps it's empathetic to think "That guy getting stabbed is in pain, therefore I'm going to try not to get stabbed," but then you're not really employing the word properly.

Your idea that empathy is the cause of the social contract is just some complete bullshit. The social contract is abstract in itself, and any "cause" of its coming about can only be figurative. Regardless, whatever it arose from cannot grant validity to adaptations to it unless it is still the case that we find that cause legitimate. So what you need to show is that most people have an empathetic desire to give socialized healthcare.

Yes, I know we have been socializing things. This isn't good.

>>2700954
you very rarely get people to accept something when you present it in a condescending matter.

the US has been the commonwealths freakish test bed for over a century. much like micheal vick's abused rottweiler. the US just isn't smart enough to realize it because it is a vicious animal.

>>2700975
This is right.

lol america

>>2701136
supply and demand, not to mention profits derp

stupidity is a cancer OP, a terminal one that no one can cure, because well, it spreads really fucking fast. the gradual downfall of humanity is inevitable, and i cant fucking wait to see the day where humans start watering plants with gatorade.

I wish /new/ was back, so original /sci/ could have a intelligent discussion about fucking healthcare.

Here's what you can do to change the world, right now, to a better ride.
Take all that money that we spend on weapons and defence each year, and instead spend it feeding, clothing and educating the poor of the world, which it would many times over, not one human being excluded, and we can explore space, together, both inner and outer, for ever, in peace.

>>2701185
yeah and then we could use all the money that goes to hospitals (there will be no disease in the future) to paying people to suck each others dicks ooh boy what a world

>>2701185
He was a pretty cool guy that doesn't cared of anything, even cancer.

>>2701185
He was a pretty cool guy that doesn't afraid of anything, even cancer.

>>2701194
I don't understand the relevance of your comment to the topic at hand.

>>2701197
i dont see how your lack of understanding is relevant to the topic at hand. please stay on topic.

>>2700448

Genocide of its own people.

>>2701206
I don't see how your ad hominem is related to the topic at hand.

Goddamn this is the worst thread on 4chan.

The best system is a basic public healthcare system with a neighboring country with a crazy amount of specialist medical practices which are not covered.

This happens to be Canada.

That there are any people at all on this board who buy the Republican party's propaganda against all things middle class is evidence enough that this isn't much of a science board at all.

>>2700592

Wrong. The largest exporter of pharmaceuticals is the UK.

Fire fighters?

SOCIALISM

Public schools?

SOCIALISM

>mfw people actually think redistribution of wealth is bad

I EARNED THAT MONEY BASED ON MARKET VALUE SO THAT MEANS THAT MONEY IS MIIIINE

Go live in the woods by yourself.

>>2700821

If I had it, yes.

Think about it.

American exceptionalism stems from this feeling that America is the last bastion of hope. Most other countries around the world have accepted what Americans perceive as "COMMUNIST" policies, failing to realize that Social Security and Medicare and Firefighters they love so much all stem from that same ideology. On top of this, America is falling behind on almost every category in the world.

NAZI liked socialism...and they also KILLED 11 MILLION PEOPLE. Therefore socialism = murder. This is American mentality.

>>2701292
Every category, you say? How about the important ones, like best colleges, best military, most important cities, and least whiny faggotry? Are we falling behind on those?

>>2701292

>NAZI liked socialism...

OH BOY HERE WE GO

If you weren't just trolling, the nazis gave favourable treatment to corporations (slave labour etc) and suppressed labour power (ie the trade unions). Their massive rise from the great depression was one of the first applications of keynesian economics through military spending, which would be used a decade later to bring the US out as well.

>>2701303

>>2700892

That is empathy, you retard.

>>2701303

Best college per capita, you're behind the UK. Your military is so overblown that it's ridiculous.

Define "important city".

>>2701303

>Implying having a large military is either necessary or a good thing.

You don't see terrorists bombing Iceland, do you?

>>2701457
We're not behind the UK "per capita."

By "most important city" I mean New York.

>>2701313
>the nazis gave favourable treatment to corporations (slave labour etc) and suppressed labour power (ie the trade unions).
>mfw that's what leftists actually believe

FYI, the nazis basically TOOK OVER corporations and foughts unions ebcause they didn't want competition. Stalin fought unions for the same reason.

>>2701461
That's because Iceland has no power. Comparing Iceland to the US is like comparing Austria to Germany in this regard.

>>2701465

You are. If you look at the ARWU rankings, the UK have more in the top 100 per capita than the US.

Really? Most important city? You mean that one that's no longer the financial capital of the world?

Right.

>>2701488
How about the top 1000 per capita? We can define the limits arbitrarily and keep switching which one is better. The US has more per capita in the top 20.

Yes, that's the one.

>>2701487

That's the point. Your gigantic military is like the red flag to the bull.

No-one would complain if it was fairly proportional to your population, but it's not.

>>2701493

That's not really relevant to educating your workforce though, is it.

>>2701498
Retard much?

1. I'm not American
2. The US has vast economic and cultural influence. Iceland hasn't. If you want to make a point, you attack the big guy, not the small guy.

If 9/11 had happened in Iceland nobody would've cared. This is, of course, unacceptable to a terrorist who wants to sow terror.

>>2701498

The US military is big because it needs to be big. The US won't tolerate people on their ocean (and it most definitely is their ocean.)

>>2701506
What workforce? Our workforce doesn't need college-level education. Our elite class does, and they receive the best in the world.

>>2701515

You missed his point. He was saying that the giant US military stuck its nose where it wasn't wanted and hit a beehive.

>>2701521

Because the majority of them go to a top 20 university? Don't make me laugh.

The top 100 is a far better scope.

>>2701525

When they decided to avert a possible third world war in Kosovo? Or when idiots with nerve gas and ballistic missiles started making noise about using it?

>>2701531
Because the majority of them go to a top 100 university? Don't make me shit my pants.

The top 1000 is a far better scope.

>>2701525
So did other militaries (Because of NATO and other treaties). The US was singled out as a target because it's big and powerful.

>>2701537

They do, if you're talking about the elite.

>>2701539

It's extremely big and powerful. So much so that it's unnecessary.

>>2701541
>Most of them don't go to a top 20 school.
They do, if you're talking about the elite.

>>2701535

That could have been done with a military a fraction of the size. The Gulf Wars, Iraq War and Afghanistan could not.

>>2701548

They do not. There are more elite in the US than could possibly attend all of the top 20 schools. This is not the case for the top 100.

>>2701543

Who gets to decide how much the cost is for unlimited control over the worlds seas? That strikes me as something very difficult to quantify.

>>2701550
How many elite are there? How many can attend the top 20 schools? How many can attend the top 100 schools?

>>2701561

By going off the information you have about other armed forces. The US navy does not need to be the size of the next 13 combined.

>>2701565

It's a safe bet that there are not more than 125,000 to 250,000 new "elite" in America per year. (Going off the number of undergraduates at an average university and dividing by 4.)

>>2701567

That's an argument, but you're not just using the Navy to project power across seas, you're using the Navy to project power to any coastline that is controlled by a government that might act up against US interests.

Oh I mean actively act up, not the ceaseless prattle of the Europeans who are so inexorably tied to the US that any bleating they may make is ignorable.

>>2701585

Of course, but you would not need more than 1 or 2 carriers, and maybe 3 at the very most. Arguably you should have twice that number as insurance, but any more than that is overkill.

>>2701579
The US has 13 colleges in the top 20. With 20,000 each, they can churn out something like 360,000 new members of the elite a year.

Another calculation would be that the elite is the top 1% of the population. This is 3,000,000 people. We'll say elite status ranges 30 years, from 20 to 50. So in 30 years, the top 13 universities must churn out 3,000,000 people. This means they have to produce 100,000 new members of the elite each year, an easily attainable number.

>>2701590

That's not really accurate either; as good as a carrier is their power projection ability is quite small compared to what it patrols. What you seem to be expecting me to believe is that maybe 80,000 people can patrol the world.

>>2701596

13/5 < 3.

The UK still wins on a per capita basis.

>>2701605

Why do they need to be patrolling the world at all times? It's not difficult to figure out when something might fuck up. It's also not hard for them to move to the right position in a matter of days at the vey most.

>>2701613

Because that's how power projection works, and that is desirable. Physical presence is important because we have yet to develop drone and missile technology to the point where the US can project from home. Rest assured that day is coming and in African and Middle Eastern hellholes the word "American" will become associated with gods raining down destruction on them out of nowhere.

>>2701622

You consider that a good thing?

If you leave shit alone, it will not disturb you. America still hasn't learnt this lesson.

>>2701608
I apologize. But I hope that you have seen my real point: that drawing distinctions about "per capita" is based on a largely arbitrary division of where we say "best colleges" gets cut off at. America has the most of the best colleges, and per capita is not really relevant. If we are in search of elite colleges to place our elite children in, we do not need to consider the population of the country the colleges are in.

>>2701642

It's true, it is relatively arbitrary.

It is important. If your population is 5 times as small, you need 5 times fewer universities. Therefore stating that the US is the best because it has the most good ones is a rather empty claim, because it is not necessary for many of the other ones to have that many good universities.

>>2701636

Actually, America's got a pretty good track record of being sucker punched by other countries when it lets its guard down. And they actually tried the whole "Live and let live" policy back in the 20s, but it didn't work out so well.

So, I guess the real moral of this story is that whenever Europe cries about the US doing something big and bad, they ought to look in a mirror because they created this "monster?" Personally I think for all of its flaws the US is a force for good in this world but I understand this is not a popular opinion to hold nowadays.

of course social programs are "free" for poorfags

>>2701656

Europe, especially Britain, had this attitude throughout the 19th century. Eventually it realised that leaving people alone was the best policy - many Americans forget that the European empires did not collapse, but that the colonies were given independence because it was the best thing for them to do. America needs to take a similar attitude.

Of course it would continue taking hits for a while, but a country's reputation does not disappear overnight.

>>2701653
I disagree that it is an empty claim. Imagine we have two countries. One has one million people and 500,000 of the top colleges. Another has 1 person and 1 of the top colleges. Now, when I ask "Which country has the best schools?" which one is the more reasonable answer?

In some cases, sheer mass is what we are talking about, not per capita.

>>2701677

It's true that it has the most best schools, but that's purely because it has more schools overall! A country with 60,000,000 people compared to one with 300,000,000 (to compare the UK and US again) needs 5 times fewer, and so can be expected to have fewer good ones.

The importance of this is the final workforce. If one country has a higher proportion of its workforce educated at better schools, even though there are fewer of these better schools, it's doing better off than the other one, even though that other one may have more good schools in total. Do you see what I mean?

>>2701672

It only took Europe two world wars and the genocide of two races (and more importantly the complete and utter dissolution of European military power) for Europe to "give up" their warmongering ways.

Oh and, Europe "granted independence" to their colonies because it either gave them hideously bad PR (India,) they kicked the shit out of their former owners (Vietnam, Nicaragua, the Congo, Sudan,) or the ruling class couldn't afford to keep a restless country under ites thumb anymore (pretty much everybody else.)

Rule of thumb is: nobody gives away sweet real estate unless they have to or unless they get something in return for it.

>>2701699

That was Germany, for the most part. Most of the rest of Europe gracefully declined in power.

You're right though, but they didn't fight the last tooth and nail for them, which many other countries would have done.

Actually, the majority of colonies were autonomous before they were given independence. It was easier to just give them up.

>>2701699

You're right, but if you look at Europe from a modern perspective, it cannot be denied that giving up hugely powerful militaries was a very good thing for it.

>>2701687
I see what you mean, but the point does not follow. If we are talking about having an educated workforce in general, we want to talk about how many people per capita go to college at all, rather than how many colleges in the top 20 per capita we have. I don't know the numbers for this.

Regardless, my point is that population can make a country better. When we say "Who would win in a nuke fight, the United States or a country with 1 person and 1 nuke?" we don't take into account nukes per capita. Likewise, the United States has more elite people, which I submit that as a raw number indicates the value of a country.

>>2701710

Yeah Britain didn't fight tooth and nail to keep India? Pretty sure you can come up with old newsreels on Youtube about British violence against nonviolent protests in India. France didn't literally go to war over Vietnam?

>>2701720

That's not the same, because nukes don't concern people individually, whereas universities do.

>>2701717

It can only be considered as such because some big, overarching military power defended it for 60 years. So really, what you're admitting is what's good for the US military is also good for Europe.

>>2701729
Nukes can be compared to such things as films, paintings, scientific studies, novels, and other such "cultural advancements." When we ask ourselves which country is the center of culture and business in the world, we do not concern ourselves with the population of that country, only what is being produced.

/k/ has the answer

>>2701732

That's not a fair claim at all. The only conflicts Europe found itself in in the last 60 years were begun by Americans, or ones where America was not involved. The only exception being Kosovo, but it's not exactly as though America extended its entire military might in that one.

>>2701778

That presupposes a militarily strong Europe wouldn't start a war because I guess if you start two world-wide conflicts and try to eradicate two different races, you've learned your lesson and are ready to walk down the path of peace? That logic doesn't sound right to me.

Also, Suez Canal.

>>2701789

You're presupposing that there's any way that Europe could have or want a strong military presence after WW1 and WW2. It learnt its lesson about fascism.

>>2701808

Fascism is not militarism; assuming Europe did learn its lesson about fascism does not preclude their learning about militarism. Since Europe has fought to maintain what little it did control after World War II we can assume that Europe was still militarily inclined in the postwar era.

Now it could be that Europe has accepted that its lot is going to be that of an extension of North American influence (US influence) from here on out, but that's different from becoming a bunch of doves.

>>2701830

I never said they did become a bunch of doves, but my point was that Europe is not interested in military conflicts for the wide-being.

If you're so arrogant as to assume that "Europe has accepted its lot", then you're definitely mistaken. It's far more concentrated on its economy and social welfare than dominating the world.

>>2701843

If it is as you say, and I have no reason to disagree with it, then the purpose is still to become strong again. I'm not saying what I'm saying from an arrogant point of view, but look at it like this: Europe has been pillaged, humiliated, stripped bare of everything that gave it meaning. It's embarrassed and very much like a cat that fell off its ledge in front of everybody. So what is the cat's reaction? To act like everything has gone according to plan and salve its dignity.

While you're right Europe is not interested in military conflicts presently, it still dreams of its empire.

>>2701867

Where the hell did you get that impression from? It wants economic prosperity and welfare for its citizens. Speak to almost any European and they will not be remotely interested in "dreaming of its empire". They might do so looking back into the past, but anyone remotely educated knows that it is not a good thing.

Not everyone is out there to stomp all over everyone else. Not everyone has the American attitude to things. This power-complex is an example of America's immaturity as a nation when compared to many others.

Why the fuck does this thread even exist?

>>2701878

If that were a truism of the American political mindset, then why did we have the Marshall Plan? Balance-of-power play doesn't seem very "American" from that viewpoint.

>>2701881

umad?

>>2701886

Because America recognised that Europe had to get back on its feet. It's not exactly as though they could have done very much else after WW2 without an international outcry.

>>2701910

Could've let the USSR take over the whole continent. That actually is the endgame of "The US not getting up in everyone's shit." Perhaps it is easier to admit you're a hypocrite who benefits from American foreign policy as you decry it?

>>2701925

Which is something that would be entirely against American interests. I'm not denying that Europe benefited from US intervention, but it's not as though they did it out of compassion.

>>2701951

Yes, but your point seems to be making Europe out to be "the nice guy" when it's just as vicious as the US ever was.

>>2701965

No, when it WAS just as vicious as the US ever was.

Nationalism is retarded. Just like religion and racism, the concept helps no one and only causes strife amongst humanity. Grow up.

To cure stupidity you educate.

Fuck it! Lets just solve the worlds population issues by slaughtering all the weak!