ALL HAIL PRESIDENT TRUMP

I just started a Cheeseburger Pool. If everybody would just contribute, Cheeseburgers would be cheaper for those who need them, but some of you greedy namefaces just can’t see the bigger picture. There’s a couple filthy democrats in every neighborhood that refuse to cooperate just because they don’t eat meat. Don’t they realize they’re just making Cheeseburgers more expensive for everyone else? It’s like they think that just because they don’t eat meat right now that other people should have to starve. Either we let corrupt resturaunts sell Cheeseburgers for profit, or we could all just give a pittance and everybody could have a Cheeseburger whenever they want.

I dont eat meat or cheese, and probably more right wing than anyone here.


Stuffs bad for u on so many levels. Hard to digest, hormones, in effective calories as in takes 99% more energy and land and water to keep cattle alive to feed u than if you went to source and ate vegetables they eat.

Fuck cattle. Im more important and so are you. Best thing that could happen is cattle go extinct along with all income taxes even on Amazon who makes billions.

"

CanHasPants wrote:

I just started a Cheeseburger Pool. If everybody would just contribute, Cheeseburgers would be cheaper for those who need them, but some of you greedy namefaces just can’t see the bigger picture. There’s a couple filthy democrats in every neighborhood that refuse to cooperate just because they don’t eat meat. Don’t they realize they’re just making Cheeseburgers more expensive for everyone else? It’s like they think that just because they don’t eat meat right now that other people should have to starve. Either we let corrupt resturaunts sell Cheeseburgers for profit, or we could all just give a pittance and everybody could have a Cheeseburger whenever they want.

Spoiler

~Oh, but Healthcare isn’t Cheeseburgers. The Shit Happens Fund isn’t anything like this ridiculous Cheeseburger Pool

Spoiler

Oh, but Healthcare is Cheeseburgers

Spoiler

~No, it’s not

Spoiler

Yes, it is

Spoiler

~No it’s not

Spoiler

Good chat

You are acting like it is done for people who already can afford Cheeseburger. No, it is not. It is done to reduce the uninsured rate. The cost has to come out of somewhere and you are the cattle.

Without the mandate to force the young and healthy to pay in for those old, sick and pre existing condition people, it wouldn't even be profitable. The cost of these old, sick and pre existing condition people is usually higher. The cost is subsidized by those who can.

Not like the Republicans has any bright ideas to solve that problem. Their bright idea is not touching it with a 10 foot pole.

King Barry walks into a restaurant and orders a cheeseburger. It's satisfying but unremarkable. When King Barry gets his bill, he's shocked to discover that the cheeseburger costs $250, which he relunctantly pays.

King Barry fancies himself a benevolent ruler, and realizes there's a problem for him to solve. How are Joe and Jill Fattash going to be able to afford cheeseburgers for themselves?

King Barry then announces a plan: that all the people of the kingdom, regardless of their purchasing habits regarding cheeseburgers, be compelled to give their money to an agent of the crown stationed at the restaurant. This fine fellow would pay for the cheeseburgers of any loyal subject who happened to appear, first come first served, until all allocated funds were depleted -- at which point everyone would once again be compelled to give even more money.

The Fattashes love the idea. And, by extension, him, King Barry reckons.

So decreed King Barry. Having considered the $250 cheeseburger problem solved -- despite failing to actually reduce the cost of cheeseburgers -- he never thought on it again, except to exile those who criticized his glorious plan.

In time, the family that owned the cheeseburger restaurant had more money than the rest of the kingdom put together, King included (although rebellious peasants had put King Barry's head on a pike long ago). They bought mercenaries and seized control of government through force and bribes. In this way they became the new royalty, and from then on ruled with an iron fist.

There was wailing and gnashing of teeth, and suffering as the people had never before experienced. The end.

--------

It would be funny watching protocommunists function as the corporatist-shill footsoldiers of Big Pharma if it weren't so tragic.

Fuck, who am I kidding? It's funny anyway.

I mean, for fuck's sake, the hospitals are charging $15 for a 15 cent Tylenol. It's not rocket science to figure out who you should be taking your anger out on. Yet by some series of mental gymnastics you're absolutely livid that there's someone out there who's tired of paying into this broken system. Why the fuck aren't you tired of paying into it?

Oh, I remember now... it's because you aren't aware that you are.

First off, while it would be nice if it wasn't the case, pharmaceutics are extremely expensive to develop, sometimes to distribute.

Obviously, once the pill is developed, cost go down to a fraction of what it costed to develop it.

As such, you should see it as currents meds are paying for the research of future meds.


Does big pharma make a ton of money doing so? Yes. But why are you complaining? YOU are one of those that HATE the idea of socialism or communism so they should be allowed to charge whatever the fuck they want, no?

"

faerwin wrote:

First off, while it would be nice if it wasn't the case, pharmaceutics are extremely expensive to develop, sometimes to distribute.

Obviously, once the pill is developed, cost go down to a fraction of what it costed to develop it.

As such, you should see it as currents meds are paying for the research of future meds.

You're missing the context. We're talking about the price of Tylenol in hospital versus the price of Tylenol at Walgreens. If the price of Tylenol is necessarily high to cover the costs of further research, why isn't that reflected in the Walgreens price?

Although I probably shouldn't have said "Big Pharma" when I actually meant hospitals, health insurance companies, and so on.

"

faerwin wrote:

Does big pharma make a ton of money doing so? Yes. But why are you complaining? YOU are one of those that HATE the idea of socialism or communism so they should be allowed to charge whatever the fuck they want, no?

Again, you're missing the context. I want free market competition in part because it creates the situation within which a business can charge whatever the fuck they want without severe damage to customers; competing businesses would seize the opportunity to undercut the business that overcharges. In the case of a state-sanctioned monopoly or a state-sanctioned collusive oligopoly, the ability for such an entity to charge whatever the fucks it wants is obviously undesirable, hence my objection to government playing favorites in the realm of business, because businesses inherently have the ability to charge whatever the fuck they want -- either a particular business has the freedom to set the price as they wish, or it refuses to provide the good or service at all. The core problem of monopoly/oligopoly is artificial inequality of freedom of opportunity between businesses.

"

鬼殺し wrote:

Friendly reminder: The president of the United States is a dictator fanboy.

"

鬼殺し wrote:

I find it amusing that Americans can't even get an analogy using Cheeseburgers right.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Again, you're missing the context. I want free market competition in part because it creates the situation within which a business can charge whatever the fuck they want without severe damage to customers; competing businesses would seize the opportunity to undercut the business that overcharges. In the case of a state-sanctioned monopoly or a state-sanctioned collusive oligopoly, the ability for such an entity to charge whatever the fucks it wants is obviously undesirable, hence my objection to government playing favorites in the realm of business, because businesses inherently have the ability to charge whatever the fuck they want -- either a particular business has the freedom to set the price as they wish, or it refuses to provide the good or service at all. The core problem of monopoly/oligopoly is artificial inequality of freedom of opportunity between businesses.

In the economy's self-correcting mechanism, the government is necessary component. Big Pharma are exploiting their Drug patents. Drug patents aren't free competition. Are you suggesting government intervention to correct market failure? That is Heresy for free market advocates. No No No. Your government is suppose to talk about OBAMACARE.

"

鬼殺し wrote:

Friendly reminder: The president of the United States is a dictator fanboy. Not quite smart enough to be a dictator himself, but happy enough to praise them to the moon.

Contrary to popular Western belief, bad democracy is worse than a humane dictatorship. People seem to forget Democracy often sold out to corruption and greed in poorer countries. Democracies isn't miracle pills.

"

saylu wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Again, you're missing the context. I want free market competition in part because it creates the situation within which a business can charge whatever the fuck they want without severe damage to customers; competing businesses would seize the opportunity to undercut the business that overcharges. In the case of a state-sanctioned monopoly or a state-sanctioned collusive oligopoly, the ability for such an entity to charge whatever the fucks it wants is obviously undesirable, hence my objection to government playing favorites in the realm of business, because businesses inherently have the ability to charge whatever the fuck they want -- either a particular business has the freedom to set the price as they wish, or it refuses to provide the good or service at all. The core problem of monopoly/oligopoly is artificial inequality of freedom of opportunity between businesses.

In the economy's self-correcting mechanism, the government is necessary component. Big Pharma are exploiting their Drug patents. Drug patents aren't free competition. Are you suggesting government intervention to correct market failure? That is Heresy for free market advocates. No No No. Your government is suppose to talk about OBAMACARE.

Bold mine.

The context of free competition is sellers, not buyers. Are there many different sellers that aren't colluding with each other and no artificial barriers to competition? Then there is free competition. (Note that this would involve drastic patent reform, as patent protection is government sanctioned monopoly.)

The exception to this is customers with near-zero ability to comparison shop. Healthcare is one of very few industries where this occurs regularly - for instance, unconscious customers who need a product to be resuscitated, the treatment of truly emergent conditions, or patients whose injuries severely limit transportation options. I could definitely get behind government protections for people (especially unconscious people) in need of emergency care; in the absence of a special power of attorney or the presence of the individual empoyered by it, it certainly seems reasonable to give government a check against hospital price-gouging of an unconscious accident victim.

My sympathies in this regard, however, do not extend to chronic conditions in general. The more time one has prior to an expected need, the more comparison shopping power one has.

Edit: Fuck me, I legit read "patients" instead of "patents" as you wrote. But as mentioned above I am against most forms of intellectual property law; while I might (or might not) support limited patent protections, I'd insist on heavy regulation of any state-sanctioned monopolies patent law allows for as long as it allows them, and similarly insistent that such monopolies are only very temporarily held. I consider current IP laws to be gross violation of free-market principles, and view the granting of monopolies as reward for invention or innovation as an inherently risky proposition.

The USA healthcare system got screwed up back in the 60's & 70's when the government started meddling with it and messed it all up. This happened largely thanks to union thugs and lobbyists.

Everyone knows the USA healthcare system is screwed up, but the question is how to fix it: more government meddling? Or removing government meddling.

I tend to favor removal, since government meddling caused the problem to begin with, and more government meddling could just screw it up worse.