• quicklime
    link
    fedilink
    1201 year ago

    That’s in the same category as “who would consider health care an appropriate industry for profit?”.

    • @reddig33
      link
      761 year ago

      Who would consider it? The same people who are coming for public education.

      • @iyaerP
        link
        511 year ago

        The cruelty is the point.

        Their end goal is a population of moronic wage-slaves who are living a barely subsistence lifestyle that will believe anything told of them rather than challenging the wealth, power, and right to rule of the ruling class.

        They aren’t just conservative, they’re regressive. They long for the days of Feudal lordship with themselves cast as the lords.

        • @Yawweee877h444
          link
          14
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          “The cruelty is the point.”

          I see this phrase often, and I disagree with it and I’m not sure why people keep repeating it.

          Cruelty: inflicting pain on others. This is not the point at all. They don’t wake up every morning and say “how can I cause more pain” on individuals or the general populace.

          They are almost completely indifferent to the suffering of others that they cause. They are simply greedy and selfish, they want all the money and power, so they can have it all to themselves. Fucking over everyone else is just the process to get and keep what they want. This is my opinion at least.

          “Cruelty is the point” is just silly, and absolutely wrong. I also feel like it misdirects talking about the true motive, which I think is mostly greed and selfishness. Cruelty is just a side affect they don’t care about.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            91 year ago

            Except no. In reality many people make themselves feel better by making others’ lives worse. Cruelty is indeed one of the goals for many.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              31 year ago

              In this case though, I tend to agree with the previous person that it is malignant indifference. Millionaires aren’t actively trying to hurt people, they just don’t give a shit that they’re doing it. If the same or better results could be achieved another way, they’d go the other way because it would maximize profits.

              You’re right that there are sadists out there who enjoy the suffering of others, but I’d wager that’s a very low percentage in terms of people running companies or crafting legislation.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                11 year ago

                I think you’re putting a lot of weight into greed in terms of money, and it’s my belief based on watching famous rich people talk that many of them want money, power, and status. The things they say and the way they can bring other people down, those are some ways that they can demonstrate that power or status.

                And that makes sense if you consider what meaning money has to the ultra rich. People who have more money than they could ever spend will probably try to get more, but that alone wouldn’t be satisfying. So then they’re going to look to other ways to feel like they’re on top of the world. One way to create that feeling is to knock others down.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            91 year ago

            You have a good point and it almost seems more malicious this way. At least with cruelty there’s a point of sorts behind the action. This way is almost indifference and feels much more sociopathic since its willful not changing those actions

          • DominusOfMegadeus
            link
            fedilink
            61 year ago

            I agree with you. I do think that the temporarily embarrassed millionaires who support the oligarchs quite enjoy the racist fascist cruelty that the ruling class is encouraging them to enjoy.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      151 year ago

      I think that there are spaces in healthcare where you could safely apply a free market. “Hey, yeah, I see you have a cane, but have you tried my super luxury high speed low drag jet-powered hover cane? Guaranteed to be 1000% more like a Nerf commercial than any standard cane!”

      “Woah, check it out, we built an MRI that’s way cheaper and doesn’t scare the shit out of people!”

      “Hey, I found a medicine that cures baldness!” Etc.

      Right? I can see the intersection of luxury (in the sense that not buying it incurs no cost, not even an opportunity cost), convenience, and healthcare being a place where there’s room for the free market. The problem is that we’ve gone and applied it to everything, including all kinds of things that shouldn’t be free market. Then you end up with all kinds of goofy fucking bullshit like corporates parenting stuff that the DOD paid to develop (Epi Pens, vaccine adjuvants, etc), GSK opting to develop a singles vaccine instead of a tuberculosis vaccine, etc, etc, etc. Oh, that last one is real. Here: https://www.propublica.org/article/how-big-pharma-company-stalled-tuberculosis-vaccine-to-pursue-bigger-profits

      This is probably an unpopular take on Lemmy, but I believe that free markets generally work well where they exist. But there’s a lot of things that have no business being free markets, like healthcare, and aren’t free markets (and won’t behave like them) even if you try super hard to pretend that they are. You see, a truly free market requires the ability to say no and suffer no cost. You can buy Bob’s Widget, Jan’s Widget, or no Widget and be perfectly fine. This is not the case in healthcare. If you’re having a heart attack, your choices are:

      -Agree to pay for this widget but we can’t/won’t tell you how much it costs until we’re done.

      -Die

      That’s not a free market, that’s not how free markets work.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          91 year ago

          Yeah. It’s wild to me, because the Dutch actually have a private, insurance-based system and it works great for them. Their healthcare is affordable, as is their insurance. But the Dutch also aren’t afraid of regulating.

        • @Eldritch
          link
          31 year ago

          A free market cannot have oversights or constraints. If it does it’s not free. Free markets have never worked. Will never work. And simply can’t exist. Either powerful entities will seek to control the market for themselves. Or if you’re lucky benevolent people in government will do their best to control the markets against said group. Someone is always controlling it.

          The best we could ever hope to have is a fair market. And the only way to have a fair market is to have a market that is completely optional. Markets that deal and necessities can never be optional. Because Necessities are not optional.

          I don’t care what they charge for luxury housing or fru fru fancy food. But we can and should provide desirable public housing and basic nutritious food for everyone. And if they want a luxury house. Or fancy food. Any of us are free to work to get it should we choose to. But the point is choose to. Not be forced to under coercion for basic survival.

            • @Eldritch
              link
              31 year ago

              Correct. But both preclude having a free market.

      • quicklime
        link
        fedilink
        21 year ago

        My comment was a bit of a simplified hot take. And your perfectly valid reasons are why I didn’t also throw housing and food right in there in the same take.