MayCaesar

Let’s start with morality.

The claim that “morality is subjective” is meant to sound neutral — as if it grants some kind of philosophical immunity. But the very next sentence calls collectivism “tyranny.” That’s a moral statement. So is calling collectivization “banditry,” welfare “disgusting,” and individualism “freedom.” The argument tries to stand above moral claims while constantly making them. But a neutral frame can’t use loaded language to smuggle in its own values. Either the conversation is about ethics, or it’s not — but it can’t switch rules depending on which side is talking.

Next is the idea of peaceful negotiation vs. coercion.

In theory, a free market is a space of mutual, voluntary exchange. But in practice, that only works when both parties have the power to walk away. In emergency care, cancer treatment, or housing, that’s almost never the case. When one party is desperate and the other controls the resource, the exchange isn’t peaceful — it’s extractive. It’s not a trade between equals. It’s “your money or your life” with paperwork.

Markets don’t break down because of emergencies — they break down in emergencies. That’s why disaster relief, emergency rooms, and fire departments aren’t run like fast food franchises.

On cancer research and pricing:

Innovation is essential — no argument there. But much of that innovation happens in publicly funded labs, universities, and research hospitals. Many breakthrough drugs are developed with taxpayer funding, then sold back to the public at enormous profit by private firms. This isn’t rewarding genius — it’s socializing the cost, and privatizing the reward.

Charging a fortune for medicine doesn’t make someone a villain. But calling it “peaceful negotiation” while patients ration insulin or die from lack of care feels disconnected from the real-world consequences.

The Canadian dental example is a good case study.

No system is perfect — and yes, rationing exists in universal systems. But in those systems, prioritization happens based on medical need, not wealth. No one gets turned away for being too poor. No one is handed a $5,000 bill for a tooth extraction. And no one has to set up a GoFundMe to survive. If the tradeoff is waiting longer for an elective procedure, that’s not ideal — but it’s a far cry from bankruptcy.

The grocery store analogy breaks down under scrutiny.

Refusing to sell someone food isn’t the same as triaging care in a public system. One is a business decision; the other is a judgment of need in a limited-capacity system. If healthcare were just another product, then yes — people who couldn’t afford it wouldn’t get it. But that’s exactly the problem with treating essential care like any other consumer good. A society that sees no difference between food, phones, and open-heart surgery isn’t imagining a future — it’s ignoring reality.

On mutual responsibility:

The argument suggests that shared obligations — through taxes, welfare, or public services — are new, tyrannical, and unnatural. But mutual aid is as old as human civilization. From tribal societies to modern cities, humans have survived by supporting one another. Roads, schools, sanitation, libraries, power grids — none of these are private, and none would exist in a purely voluntary model.

Rejecting all collective responsibility in favor of radical individualism isn’t a defense of freedom — it’s a rejection of interdependence. But no one lives independently. Even the most self-reliant citizen depends on countless unseen systems to function. The only question is whether those systems are run for the common good, or for maximum private profit.

About the “slackers” and obesity argument:

It’s a common talking point that public healthcare subsidizes people who make “bad choices.” But most healthcare spending doesn’t go to people who sit around all day. It goes to working families, kids, the elderly, people with disabilities, and yes — sometimes to people struggling with lifestyle diseases. But judgment shouldn’t dictate access to care. A society that withholds help from the “undeserving” becomes one that dehumanizes the poor and rationalizes neglect.

If concern is really about costs, public systems are cheaper per capita. And if concern is about fairness, then subsidizing billionaires through tax breaks and privatized profit off public research is far more unjust.

Finally, the Black Book of Communism and the “corpse tally.”

This reference gets thrown around a lot. But it’s important to understand what’s actually counted in that book: not just deaths, but also famines caused by war blockades, military casualties killed by Nazis, civilians killed by Nazis, and even missing births from low fertility rates — all labeled as “victims of communism.”

If that’s the metric, then capitalism’s death toll includes colonial genocides, transatlantic slavery, world wars, famines caused by global markets, medical neglect, and preventable deaths due to poverty. The list grows fast.

If the conversation becomes “which system has the longer death list,” everyone loses. It’s a distraction from the real question: which systems let people live longer, healthier, and freer lives today? On that question, the answer is clear: the systems that treat healthcare as a right — not a product.

In the end:

Capitalism is not inherently evil, nor is collectivism inherently perfect. But it’s clear that some human needs — like healthcare — simply don’t follow the rules of consumer markets. They require planning, solidarity, and yes, public support. That isn’t tyranny. It’s how societies endure.

And recognizing that isn’t naive. It’s how we make sure people don’t die waiting in line — or worse, alone, without one.

why do you think you know better than every other developed country in the world except the USA? that provides healthcare to everyone at half our cost with generally better wait times? you're not acting within the norms of civilized society, from a global perspective... you are being radical. goes with the territory... Democrats are actually pretty conservative from a global perspective, and republicans and conservatives are actually pretty radical and chaotic, and don't stand for much at least for the poor and working class

it seems you should be advocating reform, not dismantling healthcare

taking people's health insurance frees them? making them unable to afford healthcare frees them?

I recall you earlier saying how the logical next step of providing healthcare to everyone was people dying in the streets. why do you contort yourself into all these pretzel twists to rationalize stripping people of healthcare? 

Why are Americans so obsessed with skin color? Do they teach that in your schools?

You’re right that public spending on healthcare in the U.S. is enormous — more per capita than any other country, including those with universal healthcare systems. But here’s the problem: most of that spending goes to pay private companies.

• Medicare contracts with private hospitals, clinics, and now with private insurers through Medicare Advantage.
  
• Medicaid does the same — it purchases care from for-profit providers.
  
• The ACA marketplace is literally a public subsidy for private insurance companies.
  
• The VA is one of the only fully government-run systems in the country, and it consistently ranks as one of the most efficient and cost-effective healthcare providers in the U.S.
  

So yes, the government spends money — but it does so within a for-profit market structure, with limited price controls, no universal regulation, and high administrative overhead from billing fragmentation. That’s a capitalist system — just one with some public dollars trying to paper over the gaps.

This one I have to push back on more strongly. These programs were created because millions of people were either dying, suffering untreated illness, or going broke because they were uninsurable in the private market. Before Medicare’s creation in 1965, half of Americans over 65 had no health insurance, and nearly 1 in 3 lived in poverty. The private market refused to cover them because they weren’t profitable.

The same goes for Medicaid — it wasn’t idealism, it was necessity. The idea that these programs exist because of some mass delusion ignores both the suffering that led to them and the widespread public support they continue to have.

And yes, “we” means all of us — because even if you personally don’t use those programs, your society, your emergency room, your hospital system, and even your premiums are shaped by whether or not others have access to basic care. Healthcare is interconnected. It doesn’t work like buying a phone or a candy bar.

Exactly. And that’s the point — healthcare isn’t a Snickers bar. It’s not a luxury good or a convenience product. It’s a universal, life-critical need that every person encounters eventually, often under emergency conditions, with highly asymmetrical knowledge and no real consumer choice.

You can shop for shoes or laptops. You can’t “shop around” when you’re unconscious in an ambulance, or comparing cancer treatment plans, or watching your child spike a 105-degree fever at 3 a.m. Markets rely on informed, optional decision-making — healthcare doesn’t work that way.

And when markets meet desperation, we get exploitation — not efficiency.

On the contrary, recognizing that different services require different structures is a mark of thoughtful design, not lack of imagination.

• Capitalism works best for competitive goods — things you can choose not to buy, or easily substitute.
  
• It works worst for essential goods with no substitutes — healthcare, education, water, energy, infrastructure.
  
• That’s why every country in the world — including the U.S. — already regulates these sectors, subsidizes them, or provides them publicly in some way.
  

If a profit-maximizing company can increase profits by denying care, raising prices, or excluding unprofitable patients, it will — that’s capitalism working as designed. That’s not a bug. That’s the logic of markets applied to the logic of life, and it’s incompatible.

Final thought: You mentioned ChatGPT as something people couldn’t imagine 10 years ago. That’s a great point. But the takeaway isn’t that capitalism can solve anything — it’s that technology evolves, and we decide how to use it. AI could be used to improve healthcare access globally — or to sell more ad space and lay off medical coders. It depends on who controls it, and what incentives they follow.

“Putting people over profit” isn’t a slogan — it’s a design choice. And history shows that when healthcare is organized around care, not capital, people live longer, spend less, and suffer less.

That’s the real-world result of letting the market run healthcare. If capitalism worked for medicine, we wouldn’t need Medicare, Medicaid, the VA, or the ACA marketplace at all. But the truth is, every functioning healthcare system in the world relies on some degree of collective protection, planning, and regulation — which capitalism alone doesn’t provide.

First, you will pay your taxes no matter what. why not have the free education. that would eliminate some future trump voters

Second, i do not live in the usa but we have free education in germany and i literally have never read anything about islam or god in my modules.

I doubt that would be the case in the USA considering their relations with the middle east. Especially in a serious science like cosmology. 

But hey, Those f22s do look good indeed. 

I hear they shoot rockets or something like that. wow wow wow!!!!!