Discussion in 'Awareness & Fundraising' started by annV, Apr 14, 2018.
Separate names with a comma.
Almost half of all Americans would not be able to cover an unexpected expense of $500 or less.
@23% have no money at all.
@36% of all older ill Americans must be cared for at home by family and friends because they can't afford to pay
for nursing home expense.
I don't even want to get into out of pocket medical insurance costs.
@24% of Americans can not afford a $20 mouth guard that insurance will not cover.
What is your point? If we can learn anything from the 20th century (and from what has been happening in Venezuela) it is that the fastest way to increase prosperity (especially of the poor people) is to eliminate socialism/stop interfering with those private companies. The richest USSR citizen (who wasn't part of the party elite) had a lower standard of living than the poorest American/Canadian (I know this because my family spent time being both).
@Bill Bauer In the USA the 1 percent control 82% of the wealth. Worldwide the 1 percent control 48% of the wealth.
We had employees at my hospital ten or more years ago making a 100 thousand dollars a year who ask other fellow workers if they could borrow a few dollars because a sick child or parent was costing them 75 - 100 thousand a year for medical that insurance would not cover.
And you are willing to cut your own personal wealth by a factor of 10, just to take away the money they earned from them, right? As you change how you divide the pie, the pie gets smaller, and the poor people will get (a Lot) poorer.
@Bill Bauer Welcome to California and other States where Federal and State taxes and Social Security taxes and sales taxes and real estate taxes and this tax and that tax will eat a person up. Then add on car insurance and home insurance and real estate taxes and education costs and see what you have left over.
I forgot dental costs, eye care costs and out of pocket insurance premium costs and medical insurance costs for your family.
Goldman Sachs, Hitler.......
Anyone else see the irony here?
Like the NHS (a free service to the public) that has 2 new cures for blindness. You should be able to get these on co pay for about 800k in the USA soon. Moorfields Eye Hospital - Wed 27 Jun 2018Watch this video on YouTube
Hopefully you see that I just quoted your own post. In any case, if I had offended you, please accept my apologies.
In what way is what you said different from:
It isn't wrong to wish that people showed more compassion when making a decision about what to do with their savings.
Also, you do see that if they show compassion now and develop a drug that will end up being unprofitable and leads to a loss, they won't be in the business of developing new drugs for long. If we want them to keep doing this in the long run, we ought to want them to find ways to continue being profitable in the short run.
I don't know anything about their history. If their other sins are similar to the one they had been accused of in this thread, then it sounds like they are the victims here.
Note, that I was just mirroring the original post, to make it clear how ridiculous it was.
Yes, one option is no cures for anyone ever. The other option is the one you had referred to: cures that are available only to the rich during the first decade or so and that are then available to everyone at a reasonable cost. Choose wisely.
1. Let the police police.
I totally agree with 2 and 3. Theyre evil to the core.
Because I see a deep spiritual ROI in being selfless and going out of my way and incur personal losses to help people in need. They print effin fiat money out of thin air anyway. I make good money and dont care to do things like secretly pay for some old woman to have a new roof put on her house simply because I noticed it was dapidated and could see she couldnt afford it on her own. Im not a marxist communist. I am an internal personal communist that doesnt need a government hierachy to force me to help my fellow humans and if everybody was like that the world would be closer to a utopia.
You are free to do whatever it is that "turns you on". But why are you denying others the same freedom?
Note that the innovation by firms comprised of selfless individuals who are just trying to do the right thing would not be sustainable.
Societies where being selfless for the greater good, instead of being motivated by personal gain, have already been tried, and they had failed every time, and in a spectacular way. For some examples of this, see Venezuela or what happened to China's standard of living once they switched to "personal gain" motivation.
And just to ponder how breathtakingly unfair some of the comments in this post are, it is my understanding that Goldman Sachs' business model is to promise its investors the that they will work on maximizing the return and minimizing the variance of the value of their investment. Imagine investing your savings with them, only to be told that they used your money to pay for something that will benefit others, and that your money is now gone. Apart from the fact that that would mean that you would become a victim of a scam, think about what that would mean for the future ability of inventors to raise money to finance the development of their inventions.
Why be proud of the fact that you don't understand what it is the Central Bank does? I mean they Do print fiat money, but I am not going to educate you about all of the ways this is preferable to having a gold standard.
If you are unhappy that Others are not meeting your standard of selflessness, then you are not an entirely internal personal communist. There is a bit of a Marxist in you as well, right?
Saying this makes as sense as saying "if nobody had T and if everybody were rich and in perfect health, the world would be closer to a utopia." The statement might or might not be true, but it is so unrealistic so as to be irrelevant.
Note that the first humans having an intellectual capacity similar to the present-day humans appeared between 100,000 and 50,000 years ago. It is shocking that it took tens of thousands of years to get a civilization going. Most of the modern progress has been made in the past 200-500 years, so imagine where we would be now if we were to get to this level 40,000 years earlier.
One possible reason why it took this long to innovate our way out of the stone age is the fact that for most of our history people lived in small tribes that shared everything. Those tribes were as close to what you called a utopia as it gets. The incentive structure in those tribes was not enough to cause innovation. By the way, another thing those people did that we might still want to do at an instinctual level is kill strangers and take their stuff. This must be what had motivated people to talk about how Goldman-Sachs people don't deserve to have control over their own money.
I believe that you won't mind if I mention a few things on tinnitus and it's place within society and the financial aspects that associate with this condition. I have used several data bases for this information - USA.
Some of poorest people with any condition is those with tinnitus other than malnutrition and depression. Many with malnutrition and depression also have tinnitus.
ER - Emergency room visits - For those without insurance tinnitus ranks high with the homeless and those with malnutrition and depression - some with tinnitus are homeless, have depression and malnutrition. Many insurance companies will not cover full treatment for tinnitus and that includes Medicare.
Many with tinnitus are not accepted into the workplace for so many reasons. Some beyond misunderstanding of this condition is the responsibility issues of an employer providing a safe sound environment. Example - some with tinnitus cannot use phones and a danger if a fire alarm goes off.
It's very difficult to get Social Security disability or any disability income having tinnitus.
What is the connection between the information in your post and the topic of this thread?
I am a big fan of the free market, I don't think you understand the point, so let me "point it out for you". The NHS can now offer cell based procedures to cure certain forms of blindness, that was done with PUBLIC funding. The apple is not enough for r&d, look at the cancer model, its a fuckin disaster, you need to back up cash with force and threat. Otherwise you will have Goldman Sachs types ruining the whole market for everyone. These people don't even understand cryptocurrency, so what makes you believe anything they have to say on cellular repair treatments.
Money, attitude and society. This is a tinnitus board isn't it.
I never said the gold standard was the right model. I just think at the end of the day, instead of buying a yacht, they could pay themselves like $300,000 -$500,000 a year max and donate the rest of that money to medical research, charge us less interest, etc. In the bailout, $1.6 Billion went to pay executive bonuses.
The Goldman Suchs CEO made $54,000,000 that year. What kind of pitiful goon even wants that much money, not even in just one lifetime, but one year? That's just totally ridiculous, these are the people that control our financial world and they're idiots that don't have a clue what life is truly about.
Forget that they're the ones that set the economy back 10 years, why does any person
I am not from the UK, so I didn't know what the NHS stood for. It sounds like the innovation was done with public money, but the public doesn't have enough funds to pay for the procedure just yet, so the private individuals who are paying for this procedure now are subsidizing the public research to bring the costs down to the level where the public will be able to afford to pay for all of the individual treatments that are required. The alternative to having those people pay to get the early access, is for everyone to have to wait for longer before the treatment can be offered to everyone.
How do you know the current research path taken by the private companies is not the most efficient one? In fact, it is my understanding that a lot of progress got done as far as breast cancer is concerned.
Part of my education includes a honor's degree in Finance/Economics with a 4.0. This site's administration can check my credibility on this as they have my name. I was offered an interview upon graduation years ago by Goldman. I declined. I decided that I wanted to use another part of my education in helping people. I've always had knowledge of Goldman because I also part time managed investments for other people which where mostly responsible biotech.
1. That is not correct, that hospital got there first with public funding and government support, not the Mayo, not Stanford, MOORFIELDS public hospital, so clearly your presumption is not accurate. The money is not enough, someone has to watch how it is spent.
2. I know its not the most efficient one because even the private route has problems...BIG PROBLEMS. Peer review needs to be ruled with an iron fist. https://retractionwatch.com/2018/07...ilty-of-misconduct-in-charge-of-an-nih-grant/ The only reason Breast cancer has "some" treatments now is because of feminism and media hype (not to mention the disproportionate funding and attention it gets compared to all other cancers, if tinnitus was a womens only condition they would have cured it long ago.
The hospital came up with a cure. This is analogous to Alexander Fleming discovering penicillin in 1928. The point is that when Fleming discovered it, what he Hasn't discovered was how to produce it cheaply. That is The Hard Part, and I believe that in case of penicillin this work was done during WWII. Likewise, now that a cure was found, the hard part is to work out the kinks and to find a way to produce it cheaply and safely. So the research is not over, and the people who are paying through the nose for this cure are contributing to paying for this research.
That IS messed up.
This is what happens when the government interferes in the economy - if the money is not being wasted or mismanaged (those geniuses didn't even think about attaching any strings to the bailout money), it is being stolen. It is not surprising - the government officials are not using their own money to make the payments. They don't care. If, in the Public Sector, they spend the money and don't get any results, they have their budget increased.
It is fascinating that you think that it is ok for you to make decisions about how others ought to spend their own money.
Like I pointed out earlier, decreasing the productive people's share of the pie has a cost. That cost is the fact that everyone's standard of living will have to get lower.
Whatever their contribution to the bear market, surely it is matched by their contribution to the bull market. The market has been rising for the past 30 years, so their total net contribution over the past 30 years must have been enormous and positive.
I'm more concern with income inequality than someone in the 1 percent with a net worth of a $100 million or billions. In the USA, professional sports players often have $20 million yearly contracts. It can cost a family $500 to attend one game that would include parking fees, ticket costs and a $100 for a few hotdogs and beverages.
Lets take one family that would like to attend a professional football game. The father works in construction at the stadium for a sub contractor at $23 a hour repairing or placing seats which is a respectable trade. The family's pet becomes sick and it will cost $10 thousands for vet bills. If the family can't afford to pay for the care of their pet then - you know where I'm going with this.
What if the father gets severe tinnitus from all the banging required within his job and he can no longer work. How is he going to prove that he got tinnitus from his employment? Will he be able to get long term disability? Not Social Security disability, at least not for years. Will he have to sell his family home to get full welfare assistance?
What solution are you proposing that would improve on the current state of things in the U.S.?
We will never be able to change the system in the USA, not any system. There has been studies that show equality unfairness at 90% within the USA. 65% of those within the USA have no safety nets. Everything with social economic equality has to do with you are you are, where you live, employment status and how rich you are.
I'm not using big words as with some medical condition because only in your our face words are needed to describe social economic unfairness. Unfair to start with.
Economics is complicated, but there's also a lot of trickery involved within this social science just as there is in politics or any system within the USA.
Based on the experiences of the numerous friends of my parents and their kids who came to the U.S. with nothing and are now successful doctors, professors, and business owners, over the past 30 years the people in the U.S. have been enjoying equality of opportunity.
It sounds like you are a supporter of equality of outcome. This means that we will have to agree to disagree.
This is a very interesting thread, thanks everyone for all the good info. This issue seems very complex and beyond my realm of understanding so I won't pretend like I have something to contribute.
But my family were refugees to America at one point (in the late 90s), we came here with nothing...but now everyone is thriving, living great lives and being doctors/pharmacists/engineers...my grandma had 20 kids and all of them managed to carve a space for themselves in the US working middle class jobs. Even my a few of my friends who were nationalized citizens a year ago, and who came from India, managed to find a job and is doing great.
On the one hand I feel like the American dream is alive and well but only for those of different cultures, I discovered among my friends that those who complain the most tend to be the most miserable. But I do agree to some extent that it is much harder now and requires more finesse to raise up out of the situation that you're in, we should help those who have proven to have tried but can't make it due to "circumstances".
I could not agree more.
For someone making 2500-5000 more than the average hard working Joe, especially when the rich has special tax advantages isn't right. I'm not so concern with someone making 54,000,000 dollars a year as long as he does it honestly and not in ways that end up hurting lower financial classes.
Even when many of the rich donate money (tax deduction) it goes to a profit making fund making them richer (tax free again). The bulk of these funds are never given to a charity, support or a research association. Why do think so many community care associations went under in Silicon Valley. It's not because there's less needy people as there is more.