Board 8 > Health care is NOT health insurance

(+) Yeah! (+)

MariaTaylor posted...

I'm confused, is this a hypothetical? I think what you're describing is not currently legal.

What I described really happened to me and is exactly how the pre-existing conditions clause works out for most people.

The ACA is what made it currently illegal. And now the President's party wants to make it back to what it was before.
---

BowserCuffs posted...

MariaTaylor posted...

I'm confused, is this a hypothetical? I think what you're describing is not currently legal.

What I described really happened to me and is exactly how the pre-existing conditions clause works out for most people.

The ACA is what made it currently illegal. And now the President's party wants to make it back to what it was before.

EDIT:

Also I would like to point something out.

Because of the pre-existing clause, actually shopping around for health insurance is impossible unless you've made it to adulthood perfectly healthy. You're locked into one health insurance company for the rest of your life the moment you develop a chronic condition that cannot be cured. They own you. And they can raise your rates without you being able to do s*** about it. And they do raise your rates because they know. Want to go to another insurance company? Too bad, they'll refuse you because of pre-existing conditions, or refuse to treat it in the event that they actually do take you on.

This was reality for far too many Americans. And if the Republicans get their way, they'll bring back that reality.

EDIT 2:

Let me also bring up all the ways my Dad's insurance screwed my mother over by randomly refusing to cover treatments she needed, not to mention that insurance companies often refuse to pay for preventative check-ups and treatments that could save money for the common person. If health insurance is a gamble, it's loaded dice in favor of the corporation, not the consumer.

People literally die of preventable causes, even with insurance, because their insurance companies either decline the payment for their treatments which they can't even get unless the insurance company says so (because the doctors refuse to perform the treatment due to various reasons), or because the insurance company took so long to get back to them that they died before they could get the decision.

Fair.

The truth is you DONT, have a right to treatment, it is a service. What the Republicans are trying (and by god succeeding) is right and just. No insurance company should be forced to take and/or keep you if it is not in their best interest.
---

so you really could not find any health insurance provider willing to offer you service because of the fact that you had ADD and OCD? no offense but I find this very hard to believe. like, it doesn't even make sense from the insurance provider's point of view. they literally stand to make more money by enrolling more people in their service. the odds favor people not needing to use their insurance. this is how insurance companies are able to exist and make money. why would they come up with excuses to prevent people from enrolling?
---

MariaTaylor posted...

so you really could not find any health insurance provider willing to offer you service because of the fact that you had ADD and OCD? no offense but I find this very hard to believe. like, it doesn't even make sense from the insurance provider's point of view. they literally stand to make more money by enrolling more people in their service. the odds favor people not needing to use their insurance. this is how insurance companies are able to exist and make money. why would they come up with excuses to prevent people from enrolling?

Probably for the same reason they fail to cover preventative care even though it would actually save them money in the long run - they're stupid and only care about immediate profit, and they saw someone with mental problems and thought "Oh no, he's going to immediately cost us money."
---

maybe. I'm not sure what the solution is in that case. but I will say I don't believe the government should interfere and force a company to provide a service to someone if that company does not want to.
---

NPR did a program that showed seasonal allergies were sometimes used aa a reason not to insure someine. Its not just about cancer or chronic major health problems but the minor stuff too
---

MariaTaylor posted...

maybe. I'm not sure what the solution is in that case. but I will say I don't believe the government should interfere and force a company to provide a service to someone if that company does not want to.

They literally do not discriminate like this in the grouo healthcare market , just the individual one. So there is an argument that BowserCuffs should just go get a job with health benefits but jot everyone has thay option either.
---

MariaTaylor posted...

maybe. I'm not sure what the solution is in that case

The solution is fully socialized medicine, duh.
---

Eddv posted...

MariaTaylor posted...

maybe. I'm not sure what the solution is in that case. but I will say I don't believe the government should interfere and force a company to provide a service to someone if that company does not want to.

They literally do not discriminate like this in the grouo healthcare market , just the individual one. So there is an argument that BowserCuffs should just go get a job with health benefits but jot everyone has thay option either.

Which unless you can get a job in your field with how the terrible job market is, is unlikely. Even getting a full time job in retail or food services is practically impossible now because the health care laws for business absolutely broke them. If they hire more than x number of people full time, they have to pay more for health insurance, so they game the system and have tons of part timers who they don't have to provide health insurance to.
---

SmartMuffin posted...

Do you do that level of research on your physicians now? Would you know how if you had to?

I'd figure it out.

It'd probably be cheaper and easier than paying half my salary to finance an army to go around jailing people who don't meet my own personal standard of what a good doctor should be.

You've never lived for an extended time in a rural area with only one physician servicing the entire town.
---

PrivateBiscuit1 posted...

Eddv posted...

MariaTaylor posted...

maybe. I'm not sure what the solution is in that case. but I will say I don't believe the government should interfere and force a company to provide a service to someone if that company does not want to.

They literally do not discriminate like this in the grouo healthcare market , just the individual one. So there is an argument that BowserCuffs should just go get a job with health benefits but jot everyone has thay option either.

Which unless you can get a job in your field with how the terrible job market is, is unlikely. Even getting a full time job in retail or food services is practically impossible now because the health care laws for business absolutely broke them. If they hire more than x number of people full time, they have to pay more for health insurance, so they game the system and have tons of part timers who they don't have to provide health insurance to.

This is why Europe has socialized medicine. Even businesses realize that a strong social safety net even though it means higher taxes means less of a burden on them in terms of overhead which is necessary for businesses to be nimble and adaptable.
---

insurance:

even though you are healthy you pay money to the insurance agency as part of a guarantee on your good health. at the time when you get sick you are taken care of. the funds for your medical bills come from the money which the insurance agency has accumulated from everyone else who chose to pay. the amount you pay is decided based upon how often people get sick and how many people choose to pay into the system.

socialized medicine:

even though you are healthy you pay money to <the government> as part of a guarantee on the health of everyone in society. at the time when you or anyone else gets sicks they are taken care of. the funds for medical bills came from the money which <the government> has accumulated from everyone who was capable of paying, whether they chose to pay or not. well, more specifically, they simply weren't given a choice. the government just takes their money anyway. since there are more sick people to take care of: the ones who are capable of paying will always pay more money under this system because there would be more sick people to cover while the number of people paying would be roughly the same or less.

fundamentally socialized medicine and insurance do the same thing. if you argue that the current system is broken and that socialized medicine is the solution you're essentially just saying that the broken system will magically start working if different rich people without your best interests at heart were suddenly given control of the system. oh, and if everyone was forced to participate against their will if they worked, but even the people who did not work would still have their health looked after. this would potentially incentivize people into not working since one of their primary motivators -- the ability to look after their own health and wellbeing -- has been removed and replaced by the state. oh, also, the people who you put in charge are the same ones who were already in charge. after all, you've been complaining about how the reason the system is broken is because of health and insurance executives being tangled up with the government by way of lobbying or even more direct methods. do you think those people just disappeared when you suddenly gave total control to the government? because they are still there and they still just want to make as much money out of you as possible.
---

EmDubyaSee posted...

What the Republicans are trying (and by god succeeding) is right and just.

Uh the republicans are keeping the vast majority of obamacare including the pre-existing denial ban
---

BowserCuffs posted...

Because I have pre-existing conditions - Tourrette's, OCD, and ADHD. Even though I no longer need treatment for them, and am coping just fine without medication for them, I was still denied insurance at all.

How much money would you have been willing to pay for insurance back then? Couple that with how low risk you and similar people in your situation are, just imagine how much free money an insurance company would make if they just decided to accept people with mild conditions like yours, for a slightly higher fee.

Now, explain why there were EXACTLY ZERO insurance companies that were willing to take you on and make all this free money. Do they just hate money? Are they religiously opposed to covering OCD people? Why would this entire industry just leave the pile of gold that you represent sitting on the curb?
---

foolm0r0n posted...

Uh the republicans are keeping the vast majority of obamacare including the pre-existing denial ban

SHUT UP EVERYTHING THE REPUBLICANS DO IS PERFECT AND GODLIKE
---

MariaTaylor posted...

well I'm glad we at least see things the same way even if our opinion on the situation is different. just curious but what do you believe the solution is? the doctors who are providing health care in the end ultimately need to get paid somehow. if there is no insurance agency to pay them where does the money come from?

I mean I don't really have a solution. Humanity made its bed when we monetized people's well being -- how do you come back from that? There shouldn't be a price on being alive, but there is, and under that system, yes, doctors need to get paid somehow.

Ideally, I guess the government would subsidize doctors instead of spending money on pointless crap like the military. Then we wouldn't have to care about insurance companies -- let them get competitive or go out of business (spoilers it would be the latter). It's definitely not a perfect solution but I think it can be marginally better than what we've got now.
---

If republicans were actually interested in bringing health care costs down, then they'd be more supportive of immigration policies that allow foreign students into our medical schools. Our doctor shortage is only going to get worse and it's already alarming.
---

Spoiler, they're not
---

MariaTaylor posted...

insurance:

even though you are healthy you pay money to the insurance agency as part of a guarantee on your good health. at the time when you get sick you are taken care of. the funds for your medical bills come from the money which the insurance agency has accumulated from everyone else who chose to pay. the amount you pay is decided based upon how often people get sick and how many people choose to pay into the system.

socialized medicine:

even though you are healthy you pay money to <the government> as part of a guarantee on the health of everyone in society. at the time when you or anyone else gets sicks they are taken care of. the funds for medical bills came from the money which <the government> has accumulated from everyone who was capable of paying, whether they chose to pay or not. well, more specifically, they simply weren't given a choice. the government just takes their money anyway. since there are more sick people to take care of: the ones who are capable of paying will always pay more money under this system because there would be more sick people to cover while the number of people paying would be roughly the same or less.

fundamentally socialized medicine and insurance do the same thing. if you argue that the current system is broken and that socialized medicine is the solution you're essentially just saying that the broken system will magically start working if different rich people without your best interests at heart were suddenly given control of the system. oh, and if everyone was forced to participate against their will if they worked, but even the people who did not work would still have their health looked after. this would potentially incentivize people into not working since one of their primary motivators -- the ability to look after their own health and wellbeing -- has been removed and replaced by the state. oh, also, the people who you put in charge are the same ones who were already in charge. after all, you've been complaining about how the reason the system is broken is because of health and insurance executives being tangled up with the government by way of lobbying or even more direct methods. do you think those people just disappeared when you suddenly gave total control to the government? because they are still there and they still just want to make as much money out of you as possible.

Fundamentally they are similar. Its just a matter of which structure you prefer and whether you prefer the system be accountable to shareholders( who are merely interested in the dividends the health care system can pay out after all other costs are paid) or to congress(who theoretically represent the interests of their constituencies and who will not pay out dividends)

Or if youre running a business if you think you can beat the averages and a get a "deal" on your health insurancr costs by administering them yourself you might bet on insurance vs socialized medicine.
---

SmartMuffin posted...

frontline episode is the new casual revolution of 2007

Casual Revolution of 2007 ended last year
---

MariaTaylor posted...

socialized medicine:

fundamentally socialized medicine and insurance do the same thing. if you argue that the current system is broken and that socialized medicine is the solution you're essentially just saying that the broken system will magically start working if different rich people without your best interests at heart were suddenly given control of the system. oh, and if everyone was forced to participate against their will if they worked, but even the people who did not work would still have their health looked after. this would potentially incentivize people into not working since one of their primary motivators -- the ability to look after their own health and wellbeing -- has been removed and replaced by the state. oh, also, the people who you put in charge are the same ones who were already in charge. after all, you've been complaining about how the reason the system is broken is because of health and insurance executives being tangled up with the government by way of lobbying or even more direct methods. do you think those people just disappeared when you suddenly gave total control to the government? because they are still there and they still just want to make as much money out of you as possible.

You seem to be treating this as a purely hypothetical scenario when in fact multiple countries have been operating this way for years.
---

Eddv posted...

Fundamentally they are similar. Its just a matter of which structure you prefer and whether you prefer the system be accountable to shareholders( who are merely interested in the dividends the health care system can pay out after all other costs are paid) or to congress(who theoretically represent the interests of their constituencies and who will not pay out dividends)

I trust business executives more than politicians if that's what you're asking. I mean when you start a business you are engaging in a mutual exchange of services and putting yourself at financial risk. these are the kinds of people who go out into the market and try to earn money by participating in the economy. politicians steal your money and then give it to someone else.

redrocket_pub posted...

You seem to be treating this as a purely hypothetical scenario when in fact multiple countries have been operating this way for years.

which part is hypothetical? can you be specific?
---

Kenri posted...

There shouldn't be a price on being alive

In communism, when they say there shouldn't be a price on labor, what they mean is labor should be worth 0.

It's the same here. You are advocating that life should be worth 0.

Why?
---

Kenri posted...

I mean I don't really have a solution. Humanity made its bed when we monetized people's well being -- how do you come back from that? There shouldn't be a price on being alive, but there is, and under that system, yes, doctors need to get paid somehow.

nobody sat down and "decided" to monetize people's well being. this is simply how life and reality work. if you want something you have to exchange something else in order to get it. nothing is free. the doctor's MUST be paid in exchange for their services. under any system that exists.

even if the government subsidized doctors as you suggested that means the doctors are still getting paid. the only difference is you are adding extra steps where the government takes your money and decides which doctors to give it to.

there is literally nothing you can do to incentivize people to learn incredibly difficult trades which require years of education and training and then just go out and do those things for free. who the hell would do such a thing? and how would they pay their own rent or support their own family? should they be working a second job at starbucks on top of the time they spend at the hospital taking care of sick people for free?
---

the doctor's MUST be paid in exchange for their services. under any system that exists.

or we just enslave them and call it a social contract and feel really good about how enlightened and progressive we are
---

Kenri posted...

Ideally, I guess the government would subsidize doctors instead of spending money on pointless crap like the military. Then we wouldn't have to care about insurance companies -- let them get competitive or go out of business (spoilers it would be the latter).

You literally described how we got to our current system. All the market-based health insurance was driven out by government subsidized insurance, and once the entire industry got swallowed by corporate welfare, the bubble just kept getting pumped up more and more to the point that a bandaid costs $1500.

This happens in every industry that the government takes over with subsidies, except unlike cars or houses, the health industry bubble can't actually pop because apparently people really do value their lives an infinite amount.
---

MariaTaylor posted...

I trust business executives more than politicians if that's what you're asking. I mean when you start a business you are engaging in a mutual exchange of services and putting yourself at financial risk. these are the kinds of people who go out into the market and try to earn money by participating in the economy. politicians steal your money and then give it to someone else.

Sure. Youre basically pitting skill versus neutral interest.

Some will say they dont trust anyone trying to make a profit off of their health to make good decisions for said health and etc etc.

I think both systems have their cons and its just a matter of picking a road with clear eyes.
---

foolm0r0n posted...

Kenri posted...

Ideally, I guess the government would subsidize doctors instead of spending money on pointless crap like the military. Then we wouldn't have to care about insurance companies -- let them get competitive or go out of business (spoilers it would be the latter).

You literally described how we got to our current system. All the market-based health insurance was driven out by government subsidized insurance, and once the entire industry got swallowed by corporate welfare, the bubble just kept getting pumped up more and more to the point that a bandaid costs $1500.

This happens in every industry that the government takes over with subsidies, except unlike cars or houses, the health industry bubble can't actually pop because apparently people really do value their lives an infinite amount.

Yes this is one area where the compromise system is worse than either fully realized idea.
---

I can't imagine looking at a list of cons that includes "Donald Trump gets to decide" and thinking "hmm yeah that's definitely the way to go"
---

foolm0r0n posted...

I can't imagine looking at a list of cons that includes "Donald Trump gets to decide" and thinking "hmm yeah that's definitely the way to go"

so much for your "Trump will make people realize executive power is inherently dangerous no matter which party holds it!" theory, huh?
---

foolm0r0n posted...

I can't imagine looking at a list of cons that includes "Martin Shkreli (and people like him) gets to decide" and thinking "hmm yeah that's definitely the way to go"

Theyre both not very good!
---

foolm0r0n posted...

In communism, when they say there shouldn't be a price on labor, what they mean is labor should be worth 0.

It's the same here. You are advocating that life should be worth 0.

Why?

Saying life is "worth 0" is still monetizing it. I'm against that too.

MariaTaylor posted...

nobody sat down and "decided" to monetize people's well being.

I mean it wasn't one person who decided this, it was society. If you want to call that "how life and reality work" then that's fine, it's just semantics.

MariaTaylor posted...

if you want something you have to exchange something else in order to get it. nothing is free.

This is actually not true unless you go waaay into technicalities and opportunity costs. Contrary to the proverb, when you think about it practically there are plenty of free lunches.

MariaTaylor posted...

even if the government subsidized doctors as you suggested that means the doctors are still getting paid. the only difference is you are adding extra steps where the government takes your money and decides which doctors to give it to.

Yup. I'm not claiming that's not true. I'm falling back on socialism as the "I guess this is marginally better" solution since I don't have one that addresses my actual complaints.

MariaTaylor posted...

there is literally nothing you can do to incentivize people to learn incredibly difficult trades which require years of education and training and then just go out and do those things for free. who the hell would do such a thing? and how would they pay their own rent or support their own family?

Paying for rent and family support is also putting a price on well being, so I'm against that too. That's why I said that under our current system, yes, doctors have to be paid. And they should be, and deserve to be. I'm not challenging that.
---

SmartMuffin posted...

so much for your "Trump will make people realize executive power is inherently dangerous no matter which party holds it!" theory, huh?

No
---

so do you think all of human society should be destroyed?
---

Kenri posted...

Saying life is "worth 0" is still monetizing it. I'm against that too.

I know you're against SAYING it because it sounds bad. But that's what your position is advocating.
---

Kenri posted...

This is actually not true unless you go waaay into technicalities and opportunity costs. Contrary to the proverb, when you think about it practically there are plenty of free lunches.

anyway in all seriousness I strongly disagree with this statement in particular.

yes YOU can get a free lunch. but SOMEONE still paid for it. I feel like this is the point that pro-socialism people... um... actually, I don't even think that they don't understand it. I think they understand it just fine but have trouble admitting it.

what they really want is not for lunch to be free. what they want is for someone else to pay for their lunch.
---

foolm0r0n posted...

You literally described how we got to our current system. All the market-based health insurance was driven out by government subsidized insurance, and once the entire industry got swallowed by corporate welfare, the bubble just kept getting pumped up more and more to the point that a bandaid costs $1500.

This happens in every industry that the government takes over with subsidies, except unlike cars or houses, the health industry bubble can't actually pop because apparently people really do value their lives an infinite amount.

I'm not asking for government subsidized insurance, I'm asking for government subsidized care, i.e. the public option. (Insurance doesn't need to exist in general.) I'm also against corporate welfare, which I'm sure you'll say is what subsidies are but I think it's slightly different if you're paying someone for their job rather than just giving them money cuz you like them. I admit it's a thin line though.
---

MariaTaylor posted...

yes YOU can get a free lunch. but SOMEONE still paid for it. I feel like this is the point that pro-socialism people... um... actually, I don't even think that they don't understand it. I think they understand it just fine but have trouble admitting it.

If labor is worth 0 then it makes sense

Though in the case of food (i.e. lunch) then it also means the environment and natural resources are worth 0

Socialists are really freakin evil turns out
---

MariaTaylor posted...

so do you think all of human society should be destroyed?

Do you want an actual answer to this or is it a joke? I can't really tell.


foolm0r0n posted...

I know you're against SAYING it because it sounds bad. But that's what your position is advocating.

I'm against the idea of "worth" as it applies to life in general, I guess if that means things are "worth 0" in your mind then sure.


MariaTaylor posted...

anyway in all seriousness I strongly disagree with this statement in particular.

yes YOU can get a free lunch. but SOMEONE still paid for it. I feel like this is the point that pro-socialism people... um... actually, I don't even think that they don't understand it. I think they understand it just fine but have trouble admitting it.

what they really want is not for lunch to be free. what they want is for someone else to pay for their lunch.

Right but practically it's free. You don't keep a running tally in your head of everyone you owe a lunch to, maybe just the most recent ones if you're quite nice. This is what I meant about how you really have to get into technicalities and opportunity costs.

Anyway this isn't really relevant here, it was just an aside because I hate the idea of "nothing is free". One of those statements that's only correct if you go so technical with it that it becomes meaningless in the process.
---

some are evil, I think most just want free stuff and are a bit misguided.

all in all I'd say that if someone believes I am obligated to pay for their lunch then I simply disagree with them. and I can explain why I believe I am not. the only ones who bother me are the ones who refuse to admit they just want a free lunch by pretending what they want is free lunch for everyone. those people can get bent.

it's certainly no coincidence that everyone suddenly wants college to be free and massive student loan forgiveness when they have all been (admittedly somewhat unfairly) shackled with insurmountable amounts of debt from student loans.
---

MariaTaylor posted...

if health insurance providers were forced to give a payout to every single person that did not take the bet just because "if I get cancer I can't un-cancer myself" then no person would ever buy health insurance. they would just wait until they get sick and then make the bet, ensuring them to always get a payout and never have to pay in.

Then it sounds like health insurance companies need to provide incentive for people to stay loyal to them other than "Haha no you can't go to the other company, you're stuck with us for the rest of your life, unless you don't want pain medication for your crippling fibromyalgia".

You know, kinda like car insurance companies have to because you can actually change car insurance companies in this country, but you can't with health insurance companies.
---

Kenri posted...

Do you want an actual answer to this or is it a joke? I can't really tell.

well you said that you disagree with the current system of worth for wellbeing -- paying for rent, supporting your family, taking care of your health. you and I seem to both agree that this is simply how things work. this is what society is.

if you disagree with that and you do not want this to be the way things are done it seems like you are saying you disagree with society existing. so would you want to destroy society in that case? assuming you had an alternate solution to put into place?
---

Kenri posted...

Right but practically it's free. You don't keep a running tally in your head of everyone you owe a lunch to, maybe just the most recent ones if you're quite nice. This is what I meant about how you really have to get into technicalities and opportunity costs.

.... what are you talking about?

Because we're talking about a country of hundreds of millions. Of course technicalities matter at this scale. Do you understand the difference between covering your friend's burger a few times a year vs providing MILLIONS OF TONS of food for HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of citizens?

That being said, if you were ever anything than rich, you would know LOTS of people keep a running tally in their head of everyone who owes them lunch. Like as little as $1. That's what people do.
---

MariaTaylor posted...

well you said that you disagree with the current system of worth for wellbeing -- paying for rent, supporting your family, taking care of your health. you and I seem to both agree that this is simply how things work. this is what society is.

if you disagree with that and you do not want this to be the way things are done it seems like you are saying you disagree with society existing. so would you want to destroy society in that case? assuming you had an alternate solution to put into place?

I mean I already said I don't have a solution. So no, I don't want to destroy society.

But society definitely is super broken as it is now and basically unfixable without tearing it down. That's just something we have to cope with as best we can, though, for lack of a better option.
---

foolm0r0n posted...

Kenri posted...

Ideally, I guess the government would subsidize doctors instead of spending money on pointless crap like the military. Then we wouldn't have to care about insurance companies -- let them get competitive or go out of business (spoilers it would be the latter).

You literally described how we got to our current system. All the market-based health insurance was driven out by government subsidized insurance, and once the entire industry got swallowed by corporate welfare, the bubble just kept getting pumped up more and more to the point that a bandaid costs $1500.

This happens in every industry that the government takes over with subsidies, except unlike cars or houses, the health industry bubble can't actually pop because apparently people really do value their lives an infinite amount.

Farms?
---

Kenri posted...

Right but practically it's free. You don't keep a running tally in your head of everyone you owe a lunch to, maybe just the most recent ones if you're quite nice. This is what I meant about how you really have to get into technicalities and opportunity costs.

this is actually very enlightening.

yes, I am concerned about where the cost for my "lunch" comes from. getting a free lunch every day would be nice. but you have to understand that the government is stealing money from someone else in order to pay for that lunch. dismissively saying that you don't keep a running tally of everyone you owe a lunch to is basically like saying -- f*** the taxpayer, I just want my free sandwich.
---

HanOfTheNekos posted...

Farms?

Very much so
---

Kenri posted...

I mean I already said I don't have a solution. So no, I don't want to destroy society.

But society definitely is super broken as it is now and basically unfixable without tearing it down. That's just something we have to cope with as best we can, though, for lack of a better option.

this makes it sound like you do want to destroy society but you currently lack a better solution. so yeah, I don't see why you'd think my question is a joke. it seems your views align pretty well with what I was suggesting. if you had an idea for a better method it sounds like you'd be willing to "tear down" human society in order to rebuild your personal vision of utopia.
---

foolm0r0n posted...

That being said, if you were ever anything than rich, you would know LOTS of people keep a running tally in their head of everyone who owes them lunch. Like as little as $1. That's what people do.

Yeah I'll keep it in my head for a while. Then I decide it's not worth carrying that resentment with me.

What I keep better tabs on is who I owe a lunch to. That one's easier. But it's still not EVERYONE. It doesn't go back for my entire life.

Not rich btw, I'm well below the poverty line. But I live in a very very cheap area so it's easy to be comfortable on a small income. I guess maybe that's rich in its own way?

(Anyway, if the statement is "there are no free lunches on a national level" then maybe, idk I don't have the expertise to enter into that argument. Does that cover the rest of your post?)
---

MariaTaylor posted...

this makes it sound like you do want to destroy society but you currently lack a better solution. so yeah, I don't see why you'd think my question is a joke. it seems your views align pretty well with what I was suggesting. if you had an idea for a better method it sounds like you'd be willing to "tear down" human society in order to rebuild your personal vision of utopia.

Yes, if there's a button in front of me that says "Eliminate scarcity but capitalism doesn't exist anymore" I'd at least consider pressing it. (I can see a monkey's paw sort of scenario though so I'd still be wary.) Does this answer your question?
---