Fixing healthcare

Obamacare is in a death spiral.

Trump promised to repeal and replace Obamacare, but then ran dead on it, allowing Ryancare to fail and washing his hands of it.

Trump then announces he has to compromise with the Democrats on medicine.

Single payer for everyone, as in Britain and Canada, is a horrible disaster, but despite being a disaster, once in place it seems impossible to remove. If we get single payer, we are screwed.

The key problem of US healthcare is absurdly high and completely unpredictable health costs – you stroll into hospital for something trivial, and if you are white and male, get hit for three hundred thousand dollars for no apparent reason. Routine and standard health care procedures like a colonoscopy typically cost twenty times what they cost in the rest of the world, and even though they are absolutely routine and standard no one will tell you what they are going to cost.

So, America has to copy from countries that have attained low and predictable health costs, and most importantly, up front health costs, where you know what you are going to be charged: These are Singapore, India, and Thailand, which have single payer for poor people. Which means that when some bum shows up at the rich people’s hospital, they send him over to the poor people’s hospital.

The reason America has no market in healthcare is cross subsidies – white males pay for everyone, and this requires opaque prices. The government decrees that hospitals will take care of the poor and female, that insurance companies will take care of the poor and female, which in practice winds up as cross subsidies, white males taking care of the poor and female, which results in a system with no prices and no markets.

To get health costs down you need a market and prices. Singapore and similar countries have a market and prices, and they can get away with this politically because there is a safety net for the poor, the feckless, and the unlucky.

If you have clear up front prices, someone has to pay for the poor people. If explicit up front prices then you need an explicit overt handout in place of the hidden handout paid for through hidden prices.

The trouble with single payer for poor people is that it is apt to grow into single payer for everyone, as has more or less happened in France and is happening in Germany. But Singapore has kept single payer under control, and single payer has not swallowed up the entire medical industry in Australia.

What I would really like is a system where you can just turn the poor and the sick away, but we cannot have that when we pretend to democracy, so some kind of single payer for poor people it has to be.

The trouble is, of course, the Democrats are going to demand single payer for everyone. But as the Obamacare crisis ripens, and the mid term elections approach …

89 Responses to “Fixing healthcare”

  1. Sam Cru says:

    No country for white men.

  2. viking says:

    Im not sure even I would want a system where the poor are simply left in agony in the street, what if i suddenly got poor.

    Two systems one completely separate free to all citizens as long as they are not covered privately and bare bones like costa rica no paperwork because all voluntary or govt workers so no billing no fraud no obfuscating cost transfers. mostly done by software online neighborhood clinics and hospitals not like current space station hospitals

    and completely private system, price and regulation free, except must be open market nationwide, and all use same paperwork system and pricing clear

    The problem is we are a communist country and can not accepts the lowliest pauper should not have the same care given to a billionair particularly healthcare.so chances are free system care would not get passed and if did would creep up.

    like every problem we have it comes down to too many niggers by niggers of course i mean all non whites. simply cant have the level of socialism whites want and nonwhites that cant produce even enough to pay for their welfare.Its wasting time trying to figure out how run a nation with niggers in it cant be done. Haiti is how you rin A nation of niggers better yet I dont give a shit how you run a natiion of niggers I want to figure out how to get niggers out of my nation so it will run again

    • Magus says:

      “What if I suddenly got poor”

      The righteous poor can depend on charity, Church, pro Bono work, etc.

      Except in te First World world righteous poor with no savings family or friends to fall back on are very very rare. The overwhelming majority of indigent are drug addicts, mentally ill, lazy or spectacularly Low iq as to be de facto impaired.

      So I wouldn’t worry.

      And for those poor, charity would suffice, for Big Bang for buck stuff. But of course, a democracy won’t stand for that, so Jims / Singapore solution is the best within the political constraints we have.

      • viking says:

        It was more theoretical than personal. And as always practical what is actually possible as a next step.I dont believe in wasting time larping about kings and space steads while the zulus are at the gate.

        I have to say its bandied about alot lately and sounds true that half the country cant put their hands on $500-$2000 in an emergency. So I have to disagree with yout ‘rare’ idea. besides no one has 100k for a friend or family members health incident nor should people’s life savings be put in such jeopardy when whites went to the trouble of inventing shared risk.I shouldn’t need to say this but once niggers gone economy and culture improves to point where this is not about socialism its about insurance. Thus my main point. Singapore doesnt have 40% niggers, thus jims idea wont work in USA, otherwise I agree with him and pretty much laid out similar two system idea

        I think a lot of whites altruism comes from empathy or fear for themselves or loved ones. I also don’t think whites are capable of tolerating much suffering. I think insurance can do as good a job as socialism whith a white nation, but not a nigger nation they cant produce enough to support themselves. I dont think anyones interested in schemes like health savings accounts people want black swann insurance.

        • viking says:

          incapable

        • jim says:

          Space steads are a way off, but Kings are as close as thought. If one day people think there is a King, then a King there is.

          • viking says:

            Maybe obviously I think if white men decided they had had enough of this shit it would be over in a day so you may be right. But i dont know any of the type of men I like wanting a king Im not bowing to any king and frankly wanting a king cause some jewboy nerd told you it was edgy seems kind of cucky. But Hey Im old fashioned.Good luck just keep your kings east of the mississippi and we will be good.

          • Alrenous says:

            Which means kings are further away than spacesteads.

        • Belikose says:

          Insurance should be used for what insurance is supposed to be for: emergency situations. Part of the reason why costs are astronomical is due to the fact that there are no market forces involved. There’s too much “free money” to be had for healthcare services. Entitlements are another big factor, of course. A combo of a health savings account, that can become a credit account if needed, to be offset by income tax returns, alongside a true insurance market, not offered through employers. Having it come out of the paycheck takes all the “sting” out, resulting in too much free money, ballooning costs.

          • Belikose says:

            Of course, ballooning costs works to the benefit of the interests involved, because when costs skyrocket we all turn to the government to fix it. Government involvement is how we got into this mess in the first place. This is the progression. Government fucks up an imperfect system that we want to be perfected (unrealistic) > the system gets worse > we blame the failure on the fact that govt didn’t take it over completely. I don’t get it.

      • A.B. Prosper says:

        Not really.

        The average unemployment rate in the Eurozone is 22% and this doesn’t include jobs that pay too little for any kind of savings for a medical or other emergency

        And note it isn’t immigrants, they are on the dole for the most part,

        Now cleaning up the cans and kebab is essential and will stabilize the government expenditures and allow for a bit more security spending but it won’t create much work

        Economy of scale and efficiency are killing the economy and have been killing it since 1972

        even manual moderate IQ jobs like bricklayer are easily automated

        http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-03-27/meet-sam-brick-laying-robot-does-work-6-humans

        Its about 30x cheaper BTW

        And yes its not an immediate this year threat but its a growing one and the stats in terms of birth rates show it

        using the USA and good chunks of Europe as an example, the total native fertility rate correlates to automation and computers more than anything

        Taxes have fluctuated up and down, welfare up and down, feminism and cultural Marxism increased and the TFR is roughly the same.

        The US year with a highest TFR replacement since 1972 was the fake boom year of 2007 !

        Worse the idiots who sneer “hah aha ha , the true minimum wage is zero” are fucking morons, we have actual armed Reds in the streets now , shitty and low rent ones but they can grow faster.

        You want Communism ? Socialism.? Keep thinking you can avoid paying for things

        Unless you get low unemployment and good wages , the White TFR will never increase and while Jim’s “roll back modernity” approach can work , it will happen after mass die offs of the population anyway.

        • peppermint says:

          》 Economy of scale and efficiency are killing the economy and have been killing it since 1972

          That’s what people say when they want to admit that the economy isn’t doing very well but it’s illegal to blame feminism and antiracism

    • Cavalier says:

      Iceland is 99.something% white, yet is undergoing natural selection to the tune of minus 3 IQ points per century. Extrapolate.

      • viking says:

        First guess is extrapolating from iceland to european diaspora wouldn’t make sense. whats cause?guesses would be incorrect baseline or testing,you realize the whole were getting dumber theory is pretty controversial as is the whole flynn thing.
        Other guesses small population genetic degradation, self selected population emigrating,internet makes millennials functionally retarded.
        Bunch of white people just flew 46 dogs from south korea to new york that they ‘rescued’ koreans eat unwanted pets instead of throwing them in dumpsters. whites are very proud of themselves. You really think they will let people die in the street?

        • Cavalier says:

          Nope. The decline is what is lost from the decreasing frequency of education-related alleles. In other words, the smart are going to school, and the others are having children. Quelle surprise!

          • viking says:

            yes thats a big one but thats throughout the west, heel eve jews and east asians are doing that why would iceland be doing worse

            • Cavalier says:

              It’s happening in Iceland even though they have 0% niggers, therefore niggers are not the root problem. They are A problem, a tertiary problem of distant relevance and relative unimportance, but not THE problem. THE problem is the system that would, on the present trajectory, cause significant and substantial racial change in US, racial change that would, no exaggeration, lower us to the level of the common nigger within the millennium.

            • Dave says:

              The problem is that Iceland has a welfare state, which frees its population from the tyranny of natural selection. What’s left is female sexual selection, which is great for peacock tails but not so great for the traits we generally associate with Northern Europeans.

    • lalit says:

      This is exactly why poor people in the non-First world maintain their family ties with a fanaticism which would be the envy of a Jehadi. When Government does not pretend to take care of everything and everyone, people take care of each other. They have to. Notice that community bonds in harsh terrain are far stronger than in comfortable cities where people have no idea who their neighbor is.

  3. MartyH says:

    Sadly, the current US healthcare “system” costs more than twice those “lousy cheap” yet our life expectancy is lower than those “lousy” systems … and is falling. Seems like worse outcomes for lots more money.

  4. Joe says:

    It would be interesting to have some historical examples to look at to see how societies evolve/recover from universal health care disintegration. It would seem that a place like Cuba is about as far along that trend line as anyplace in the world, but even after 60 years they are still creaking along. Somehow Cubans continue to tolerate and exist in a culture where there is almost no advanced medical care and you have to bring your own supplies to the hospital.

    Apparently socialist entities don’t have a nice clean delineated collapse where the old single-payer system collapses and a new free-market system appears and flourishes. (The way the West German economic activity exploded in 1948 when currency controls were removed.) So if we get single-payer, maybe it’s going to be a century or more of at first rapid, and then slower degeneration. Maybe you’ll have to seek out black market medical care to get something decent. Maybe we’ll just degenerate right down to something like the hospital scene in “Idiocracy”.

    I think one thing is for sure: you’re going to want to stay as healthy as possible.

    • Cavalier says:

      “Somehow Cubans continue to tolerate and exist in a culture where there is almost no advanced medical care and you have to bring your own supplies to the hospital.”

      People take what they can and suffer what they must.

  5. viking says:

    heres an example I find hard to take. Up in my other home in north idaho my best friend is one of the hardest workers I know and I have been in some of the hardest trades their are logging construction etc, hes a heavy equipment operator, hes really smart but uneducated descendent of american pioneers, generous to a fault and would never ask for a thing.wages are low in north idaho despite being incredibly good at running all sorts of equipment I doubt hes ever made more than $15 hr, hes tried a few times getting his own equipment but partnerships have always collapsed in short hes morally sound. but a decade ago his 12 year old son came around a bend on a dirt bike on a forest service road to find a pickup truck coming the other way. they collided the kid went flying but his legs caught on the handle bars and both broke in half at the thigh he almost died but recovered. the hospital bill was like 100k. In idaho we dont sweep unpaid bill under the rug and we dont put people on medicaid that can earn $10 bucks an hour for 6-9 months a year, we sue them, even though they cant pay and we are simply destroying their credit that what we do. and guess what our health cares cheap not great but cheap.Im no socialist but i think white guys ought to be able to fix a situation like this without resorting to socialism. Guys like my friend are not the problem. As I see it there are several problems first is niggers thay can not support themselves and so we must do everything through socialism. The next problem is elites cant simply by the best extractors leaving the rest of the citizens in the 18th century. a certain amount of noblesse oblige is a duty, A duty to see that worthy citizens talents are valued properly not exploited as ruthlessly as possible. NO NOT FUCKING SOCIALISM GOOD STEWARDSHIP, good stewardship prevents socialism.Good stewardship pays for itself. and frankly a nation is not a medium for capitalists capitalism is valued because of its utility to a nation.Too often in kneejerk defense against socialism we find ourselves protecting the lucky the rent seeking the exploitive that are destroying out civilization.At least here on the outer right where hopefully its a given that we understand the creative destruction of capitalism its self correcting like evolution, but we also since we are not GOP cucks able to admit when capitalism is distorted.

    • Cavalier says:

      Why are you surprised that nobody gives a shit about redneck hick mechanics in the hinterlands, no matter how pure of heart they be?

      • viking says:

        Because thats who invented the airplane fore instance

        • viking says:

          when samuel Colt demonstrated his revolvers at the 1851 london Crystal palace he dismantled several guns jumbled the parts in a bag dumped them out then reassembled them and fired them and started the industrial revolution 2.0

          http://www.cycleworld.com/2017-timbersled-snow-bike-motorcycle-review-first-ride
          This is what that kid and his friends invented

          This nrx idea that all the neckbeards we need are already discovered and we can just turn the rest of mankind into peasants again is just utterly retarded

          • peppermint says:

            Precisely. Except that peasants had tons of time off and were plenty inventive. What is being done now had never been done before. Young White men are literally being told they lack the expertise to do anything and are systematically kept out of schools which are worthless except for giving them the certificates of expertise they may or may not already have and jobs, and prevented as much as possible from forming groups to build together by forced insertion of women and niggers into those spaces so that they can fight over the women instead of working. And this is done to them by their own parents.

            Today, however everyone recognizes that Hewitt and Packard started in a garage and that having access to tech and people who want to build stuff in one place is how stuff happens. That’s a huge step forward. As soon as the academics and journalists are all executed, we can return to the garages full of tools model.

            • Cavalier says:

              Intelligent children are born to intelligent parents. If intelligent parents had intelligent parents, their children will be more intelligent, on average, than children born to equally intelligent parents with average parents. In fact, if the children’s parents’ parents are equally as smart as their parents, they will experience little to no regression. Therefore, strong intergenerational selection for intelligence rapidly stabilizes intelligence in the selected group. It has been approximate 60 years since Nathan Pusey and McGeorge Bundy revamped Harvard admissions to be “merit-based”, i.e. based overwhelmingly on IQ. Assuming mean admission age of 18 and mean intergenerational length of 30 years, our elite has been selected on the sole basis of intelligence for 2.7 generations. Why are like 80% of the high-intelligence children born to the top 10% of the population? Witness: class, caste, and genes: https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2012/01/13/class-caste-and-genes/

              • jim says:

                It has been approximate 60 years since Nathan Pusey and McGeorge Bundy revamped Harvard admissions to be “merit-based”, i.e. based overwhelmingly on IQ

                This is the complete and direct reverse of truth and reality.

                Harvard admissions were merit based in 1875. Then people became increasingly disturbed by the fact that those admitted to Harvard on merit were generally the children of successful families with successful ancestors. So they started tinkering with the entrance criteria to bring in more poor people, women and blacks. This involved watering down merit, not strengthening it.

                They have been reducing the role of merit starting in 1920, and every few years thereafter.

                • Alrenous says:

                  Oh, apparently the endnotes are on a separate page.
                  You can work it out, but:
                  http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-myth-of-american-meritocracy/#fn54

                  Anyway it’s a huge article and they function as a table of contents.

                • Eli says:

                  That article made some waves. Unz is over his head though. He undercounts Jews, as many have non-explicitly Jewish last names. He’d certainly not count me, based on his criteria. I know of quite a few others, some at Harvard, whom he wouldn’t count.

                • Alrenous says:

                  “Unz is over his head; the evidence for his conclusion is even stronger than he concluded.”

                • Eli says:

                  Corollary to his conclusion is Jews are underperforming. Not so. Or at least not quite so.

                • jim says:

                  Aaron Swartz, official genius, looks like anecdotal evidence that Harvard Jews are underperforming.

                • Cavalier says:

                  “Aaron Swartz, official genius, looks like anecdotal evidence that Harvard Jews are underperforming.”

                  IQ tests and g-loaded tasks measure a component of intelligence that by most evaluations is more or less 100% genetic, i.e. the inborn part of intelligence: raw pattern recognition.

                  They don’t test for savvy. They don’t evaluate experience in the real world. They don’t indicate social performance. They don’t show understanding of power.

                  Engineers and computer dudes already exhibit strong selection for weird personality traits.

                  You just simply do not get to have this opening paragraph on Wikipedia:

                  “Aaron Hillel Swartz (November 8, 1986 – January 11, 2013) was an American computer programmer, entrepreneur, writer, political organizer, and Internet hacktivist. He was involved in the development of the web feed format RSS[3] and the Markdown publishing format, the organization Creative Commons, the website framework web.py, and the social news site Reddit, in which he became a partner after its merger with his company, Infogami.”

                  Without being a pretty smart cookie.

                • jim says:

                  Sure you get to that position while being as dumb as post – if progressive Jews in power decide they need people with the right political views helicoptered in on top of the disturbingly right wing and libertarian hacker movement.

                  If Swartz was competing in the market place, would not have made the relatively high status job as programmer, but the lower status job of tester. If he could program, could have rate limited his download so that it did not bring the network to its knees.

                  He brought the network to its knees, thus urgently motivating everyone, including his fellow leftists, to discover what he was doing and stop him.

                  The problem was not that he killed himself through lack of political and social savvy. The problem is that he brought the network to its knees through lack of engineering and technological savvy.

                  And if Harvard Jews were smart, the person that they helicoptered in to be Official Genius and King of the Hackers would have been smart enough for the role.

                  He did not attack the network by using clever software from his home office, the way the Hillary’s emails were stolen. He attacked the network by walking past security cameras with a laptop and a screw driver, getting into the cupboard where a network router was connected, and physically installing his laptop inside the firewall. These are not actions appropriate for someone with the intelligence and computer abilities required to perform the social role depicted in Wikipedia.

                • Cavalier says:

                  Nope. In 1875, and indeed every single year prior to WWII, Harvard was an elite social club for the English-descended children of the New England elite. There were lots of very bright children all around the rest of the country, the descendants of Germans, Scandinavians, Scots-Irishmen, and so on, but somehow at Harvard they never made more than a token appearance, if that. If Harvard had been “merit-based”, had selected its student body on the basis of intelligence and nothing but intelligence, the descendants of Germans, Scandinavians, Scots-Irishmen, and so on would have whipped the English-descended children of the New England elite up and down the street. As, indeed, they did, after about 1955.

                  I don’t know what Harvard is doing in 2017, but I know a book that will tell you everything they were doing up until 1985: Choosing Elites, by Robert Klitgaard.

                • jim says:

                  Your source is a lie. Every time the universities dumb down the SAT or the LSAT, they tell that lie again, and they have been telling it since 1920, because they have been dumbing down the entrance requirements since 1920.

                • Cavalier says:

                  “the descendants of Germans, etc.”

                  The descendants of NUMERICALLY SUPERIOR Germans, etc.

                  Proportionately, the students of Harvard prior to McGeorge Bundy and Nathan Pusey were a tiny fraction of the overall American population. They were drawn almost exclusively from the Northeast and from the rather rarefied “preppy” social strata. The thing they really had going for them is simple: their parents had gone to the Ivies, and their parents, and their parents, and so on, and they were raised to “get the joke” — hereditary aristocracies are much less vulnerable to the siren song of Cthulhu.

                • jim says:

                  The steady decline in the entrance requirements tells a different story.

                  As does the reading and writing level of our elite, and the artistic standards of our elite. As universities became more “inclusive”, suddenly everyone felt an urgent need to write in simpler language, and the top people somehow no longer appreciated elite art.

                  If you read stuff written by the elite to the elite for the elite, it is as plain as the nose on your face that the universities are getting dumber and dumber and have been since 1920 or so, that our elite is no longer as heavily selected for intelligence as it was in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century.

                  There are objective ways of scoring the reading level of a text, and it is not only political speeches that have been dropping like a stone. Elite to elite discussion has been dropping like a stone.

                • jim says:

                  I don’t believe your factual claims, except to the extent that some groups of whites are in fact less smart than other groups of whites, and supposing that your factual claims are indeed true, then you have to explain why the reading and writing level of our top people communicating with others of our top people gets dumber and dumber every time that policies motivated by “inclusion”, not merit, are justified on the grounds that the old cruelly exclusive order was supposedly not merit based.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  Another explanation for Schwartz is that he did not belief he was committing any “real” crime; that any crimes he committed would be celebrated and only make him seem more dashing and radical, like those of Bill Ayers. That explains the tone of his manifesto, the lack of any security precautions, and also his extreme overreaction to being eventually treated like some kind of actual criminal.

                  Schwartz is certainly in the smart fraction of the Jews, and if Jews weren’t really smart they would never have become so powerful.

                • jim says:

                  Bringing the network to its knees is simply bad performance for someone who pretends to be a hacker, regardless of whether you think you are committing a real crime or not. It demonstrates lack of the abilities and skills Harvard officially proclaimed Aaron Swartz to have. A hacker is a hacker, not a burglar. Swartz burgled the network like someone who breaks in the front door of your house, and yanks the TV off the wall without bothering to disconnect the cable.

                  The cops handled Swartz like a petty thug criminal because they had him on video acting like a petty thug criminal instead of a Harvard potentate.

                  The cops erred. Swartz was in fact a Harvard potentate. But he looked like a petty thug criminal because he lacked the brains required to act like a Harvard potentate.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  Causing maximum disruption was probably the point. His nightmare scenario in the planning phase probably wasn’t getting the cops set on him; it was no one caring about the stunt.

                  Like the guys standing in the middle of highway, he’s surprised when sometimes a car actually just hits home. But like the guys in the highway, he was shining a light and recording the whole thing on his phone, not looking out for cars.

                • jim says:

                  The objective was to steal the archive and distribute it free. The maximum publicity, and maybe the arrest, was supposed to happen during the free distribution phase. Causing maximum disruption during the stealing is a good way to steal a broken television. Because of the disruption he caused, he failed to steal the archive, like a thief who cannot fence the wall television due to too much smashing during the smash and grab.

                  Aaron Swartz was simply not very smart, and this is indicative of Harvard Jews helicoptering not-very-bright Harvard Jews into positions for which they conspicuously lack the necessary ability and intelligence.

                  Aaron Swartz is an anecdote indicating that Unz’s statistics do indeed mean what they appear to mean. Swartz was better qualified to stick up a liquor store, than to the position that he was helicoptered into. Hence the cops mistook him for one of those people who knock over liquor stores and failed to realize he was a Harvard potentate.

                  If things had gone to plan, any arrest would involve him looking like, and being treated like, being arrested like, a Harvard potentate. Instead, he got treated like the Russians treat Pussy Riot, hence his suicide.

                  What devastated Pussy Riot, and what has so enraged our elite that they are working their way to nuclear war with Russia, is not that Pussy Riot was arrested. They were supposed to be arrested, and Aaron Swartz intended to be arrested. What has driven our elite murderously insane, and what drove Aaron Swartz suicidally insane, is that they were arrested like beggars, gypsies, tramps and thieves.

                • Cavalier says:

                  “if progressive Jews in power decide they need people with the right political views helicoptered in”

                  “And if Harvard Jews were smart”

                  “and this is indicative of Harvard Jews helicoptering not-very-bright Harvard Jews into positions”

                  Wait, so… what you’re really saying is that Jews did 9/11?

                  Regarding Swartz intelligence, I see that his father founded “a small software company…that created Coherent, one of the first Unix-like operating systems for IBM PCs and several C programming language compilers”, and so must have been a pretty smart cookie; I see that Swartz was a Jew, and Jews are, on average, significantly more likely to be pretty smart cookies; I see that Swartz’s prep school ACT 50th percentile is “29-33”, i.e. fairly smart cookies; I see that “at age 14, he became a member of the working group that authored the RSS 1.0 web syndication specification.”; I see that “during his freshman year [at Stanford], Swartz applied to Y Combinator’s very first Summer Founders Program proposing to work on a startup called Infogami designed as a flexible content management system to allow the creation of rich and visually interesting websites or a form of wiki for structured data.”; I see that “in early fall of 2005, Swartz worked with the founders of another nascent Y-Combinator firm Reddit, to rewrite their Lisp codebase using Python and web.py.” (at age 19); I see that “In 2001 [age 17], Swartz joined the RDFCore working group at the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C),[70] where he authored RFC 3870, Application/RDF+XML Media Type Registration. The document described a new media type, “RDF/XML”, designed to support the Semantic Web.”

                  Does this seem like the background of an idiot?

                  Do these like normal teenage activities to you?

                • jim says:

                  What I am not seeing in your account is his Aaron’s LSAT. Everything you are describing is more an indication of his father’s connections than his ability. Obviously someone who get helicoptered into the role of official genius is likely to be well connected.

                  Of all his many supposed accomplishments the only one he actually did on his own was hack MIT – in which task he displayed a conspicuous lack of the high tech abilities supposedly demonstrated in his many other supposed accomplishments.

                • Cavalier says:

                  I also notice that you conveniently fail to address my point that the Ivy League’s student body was drawn overwhelmingly from the English-derived Northeastern population prior to about 1955, a feat that would have proved impossible were Harvard’s admissions overwhelmingly based on “merit”.

                  (I have consistently put “merit” in quotation marks because your definition of “merit” to mean intelligence alone is truly progressive, ye kind-hearted gentleman.)

                • jim says:

                  Everyone in the North East was English derived, and back in then it was a long way from South West. Also, back then, going to Harvard did not matter as much as it matters now.

                  If you are going to get the smartest people in the North East, you are going to get all English derived. (Because Harvard was explicitly Christian, the Jews went to other universities – which tended to have Jewish quotas)

                  Are you perhaps arguing that the lack of blacks and women is evidence that they were not choosing on merit?

                  You can tell if universities are choosing on merit by looking at the entrance exam. And every time they loudly denounced the past for elitism and loudly complained that university used to be for the privileged, and now they were proudly making it on merit, they dumbed down the entrance exam.

                • Cavalier says:

                  “Your source is a lie. Every time the universities dumb down the SAT or the LSAT, they tell that lie again, and they have been telling it since 1920, because they have been dumbing down the entrance requirements since 1920.”

                  My education was immeasurably worse than my grandfather’s. I wasn’t taught Latin, the location of the river Tiber, Xenophon, or solid geometry and conic sections. Hell, I was hardly even taught algebra. Everything I know and don’t know is the direct result of my own initiative to teach myself a thing, or the lack thereof.

                  But IQ tests still test the same thing. And it’s really hard to design a sufficiently discriminatory test that doesn’t test IQ, because they all test IQ. And every college wants the most intelligent students at its campus. And the psychometric guys keep trying to design a test that doesn’t uhpress blacks and women, and they keep failing. They simply cannot design a test that closes “the gap”.

                • Cavalier says:

                  “Are you perhaps arguing that the lack of blacks and women is evidence that they were not choosing on merit?”

                  No, I am arguing that the lack of Germans, Scandinavians, Scots-Irish, Irish, Italians, and most notably JEWS is evidence that they were not choosing on merit.

                  “You can tell if universities are choosing on merit by looking at the entrance exam. And every time they loudly denounced the past for elitism and loudly complained that university used to be for the privileged, and now they were proudly making it on merit, they dumbed down the entrance exam.”

                  They had SATs before the opened the floodgates. They were the same SATs for some time before and some time after. If I recall correctly, the entering class of 1954 (I think this was the exact year, but it might +/- 4 years) scored something like 550 on the SATV and SATM, and the year immediately following that one, the year Nathan Pusey and McGeorge Bundy killed the guards, lowered the gates, and let in the New Left marauders, the entering class was well over 700 each.

                • jim says:

                  They had SATs before the opened the floodgates. They were the same SATs for some time before and some time after.

                  No they were not the same SATs. Every time they have become more “inclusive”, they have dumbed down the SAT, not at exactly the same time, but close to it.

                  What happens is that whenever they get more “inclusive”, they start by including just a few of the target group. They don’t “open the floodgates”. And as they include more and more of the target group, some of the people they are including don’t do too well on the university entrance exam, and this creates pressure to change the entrance exam, which change happens a few years after the they started to include the target group, but before they include really large numbers of the target group.

                • Cavalier says:

                  And the English proportion dropped precipitously, and the German, Scandinavian, Scots-Irish, Irish, Italian, and Jewish proportions skyrocketed. Especailly the Jewish proportion. All populations with no respect for the “Anglo joke”. Boom, turbocharged leftism on super über insane steroids.

                  You might say that it was the September That Never Ended.

                • Cavalier says:

                  >No they were not the same SATs. Every time they have become more “inclusive”, they have dumbed down the SAT, not at exactly the same time, but close to it.
                  >What happens is that whenever they get more “inclusive”, they start by including just a few of the target group. They don’t “open the floodgates”. And as they include more and more of the target group, some of the people they are including don’t do too well on the university entrance exam, and this creates pressure to change the entrance exam, which change happens a few years after the they started to include the target group, but before they include really large numbers of the target group

                  And yet for some reason they keep selecting top couple percents. If they want to select randomly, why don’t they just select the “target groups” they want instead of repeatedly redesigning the test? Why do all the tests have a bell-shaped distribution roughly in line with IQ tests? Why does analysis of the SAT show that people with 500s on their first try never get 700s on their second try, no matter how much studying they do in between? Was Scott Alexander just jerking off when he collected a bunch of data including IQ scores and SAT tests and found a very strong connection between the two?

                  Come on, man. Your argument is dishonest, and you know it.

                • jim says:

                  And yet for some reason they keep selecting top couple percents.

                  No they simply do not. If they did, they would be all male, all white and asian, and all upper class. They select stupid ignorant depraved people on political, racial, class, and sexual grounds. They are “inclusive”. For example Obama’s pet gorilla. When they removed analogies from the SAT, this told us that a major part of Harvard’s intake is too dumb to grasp analogies. That is not the top couple of percents. That is the sweepings from the bottom thirty percent.

                  And proof of this is when the elite writes for the elite, as for example World Bank papers. When the elite was writing for the elite, and making speeches to the elite, the reading level used to be extremely high. With each “reform”, every time the elite became more “inclusive” their reading and writing level has fallen.

                • Cavalier says:

                  The top couple of percents includes some blacks, mestizos, and other mudbloods.

                  I don’t know why they admitted Obama’s pet gorilla, nor do I care. I imagine she’s pretty smart for a black. My question, however, is simple: did either of them ever touch the levers of power or were they but marionettes attached to strings pulled by legitimately intelligent white men, white men who must have gone to the exact same schools?

                  Everyone’s reading and writing level is declining, and has been for a long time. There isn’t a man alive who can write like Darwin or Doyle, and Lincoln, a dude famously born in a one-room log cabin in Kentucky, used to give impromptu speeches in debate with his political rivals to the notoriously unsophisticated Americans, and not even the elite Americans but the masses — the unwashed of the unwashed — and they absolutely put to shame anything you can get from anyone today, in speech or in print.

                • jim says:

                  were they but marionettes attached to strings pulled by legitimately intelligent white men, white men who must have gone to the exact same schools?

                  Power in the “ïnternational community” is substantially centered in the world bank, which is apt to overthrow regimes, ethnically cleanse entire people’s and sends out its alumni to rule. I read the stuff that their people write, and they are stupid. It is not that I disagree with their ideas, though I do, it is the rather ordinary reading level at which they discuss their ideas.

                  Here is a bunch of mostly white Harvard grads, twenty two out of twenty three of whom are not smart enough to clean my house.

                • jim says:

                  Everyone’s reading and writing level is declining, and has been for a long time.

                  Because we no longer have a community of smart people. We no longer have a ruling intellectual elite. When smart people hang out with smart people, their speech gradually becomes harder for regular people to follow. I am smarter than my housekeeper, but I talk as she does, because I talk to her a lot, and I have to talk to her on her level, because she is not going to talk to me on my level. If I was talking to Harvard non stem graduates, I would talk real dumb like they do. I can talk to girls because I talk to my housekeeper.

                  If you don’t believe that the falling reading level of papers issued by the elite for the elite indicates the elite is getting dumber, surely the removal of analogies from the SAT and the ceiling on the quantitative part of LSAT indicates the elite is getting dumber.

                  The SAT is for stupid people, and the LSAT distinguishes between the ordinary smart, and the ordinary stupid, but is not designed to separate the really smart from the rather ordinary. Pretty sure that anyone employable as software engineer hits the ceiling on the quantitative LSAT. The SAT is designed for the dumb-as-a-post masses. The LSAT can filter the top ten percent from the rest, but it is not designed to filter the top one percent from the rest.

                  If falling reading and writing will not persuade you our elite is getting dumber, falling entrance exams should.

                  The LSAT asks a bunch of questions about triangles. Used to be that back when universities were less “inclusive” the university entrance exam asked a lot of questions about the intersection of the cone with a plane. Today’s university entrance test is just orders of magnitude obviously dumber.

                • Cavalier says:

                  Abraham Lincoln was born on the frontier and spent his reading time re-reading a collection of several old books. Where was his smart community?

                  Abraham Lincoln didn’t go to school with a bunch of other smart people. Where was his smart community?

                  Abraham Lincoln ran for President and gave impromptu speeches like this one: https://www.nps.gov/liho/learn/historyculture/debate1.htm

                  And he was pandering to the lowest common denominator, apparently, because he won.

                  The question is simple: why has EVERYONE’S — not just the elite’s! — reading and writing level declined? I find the argument that we have lost 15 IQ points since the Victorian era more plausible than your empty, broken-record rhetoric.

                • jim says:

                  Abraham Lincoln was a lawyer, and had to talk to lawyers and judges all the time. And judges and lawyers in his time were quite obviously much smarter than judges and lawyers in our time. There is his smart community right there. He also received favors from politicians before he became a politician and a lawyer, so evidently became part of the elite social community, despite being poor.

                  Abraham Lincoln was socially included in the elite despite being poor, before he was a politician and a lawyer, showing that the social elite of that period was meritocratic. Today you see people who are obviously one standard deviation below average, who are socially included in the elite, showing that today’s “ïnclusive” elite is not meritocratic.

                  And I repeat my argument to which you make no reply: The most IQ loaded and most difficult university entrance test in our day is the quantitative part of the LSAT, which asks a bunch of rather easy questions about triangles and such. The equivalent in the late nineteenth century asked a bunch of questions about the intersection of the plane with the cone, and such.

                  It is just obvious that our elite is dumb compared to the elite in those days, because of the tests that they are being given.

                  If Harvard wanted smart people, or if it could even endure smart people, would give them tests that discriminate smart people from stupid people.

                  The most IQ loaded university entrance test, the quantitative part of the LSAT, has a ceiling at about one standard deviation above average IQ. It can tell if you are in the top ten percent rather than the top eighty percent, but cannot tell if you are in the top five percent rather than the top ten percent. Every moderately smart person maxes out the quantitative part of the LSAT, everyone more than one standard deviation above average maxes out the quantitative part of the LSAT.

                  The intellectual level of elite discourse reflects the intellectual level of university entrance tests. It also is about one standard deviation above average. People above 120 IQ are under represented in the elite, relative to people around 115 IQ. And the peak IQ of IQ inclusion is falling every year. The smartest people in the elite are all old people, for example Larry Summers. Among young people whom do they have?

                  That Aaron Swartz was deemed official genius and helicoptered into the hacker elite as prince of hackers because Jewish and progressive shows that our elite is not too bright.

                  Repeating the three arguments: Falling reading level of elite to elite communications.
                  Dumbing down entrance tests.
                  You can see it – the older elite that still lives is obviously smarter than the younger elite. Older elite about 125, younger elite about 115, younger elite about what maxes out the IQ loaded part of today’s LSAT.

                • Cavalier says:

                  > It is about one standard deviation above average.

                  Sure thing, dude.

                  115 IQs can comprehend intro courses such as this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNnIGh9g6fA, or this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GR63MMAi-fs, or this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZC8JcWVRFp8.

                  What world do you live in, man?

                • jim says:

                  Watched the first video for three minutes, bored, did not see anything an IQ 100 normie would find difficult. Where does the smart stuff start?

                  Short sentences, simple familiar concepts, simple examples. You tell me he is addressing the intellectual elite? Not in the first three minutes. Do the smart kids come in later?

                  Compare with the TED talks. It is usually immediately obvious that the TED speaker is substantially smarter than average, and is addressing a significantly smarter than average audience. I just see no indication of that in the first three minutes of this Harvard lecturer addressing these Harvard students. His beginning address is leveled at normies.

                  If he was on the Ellen DeGeneres Show and gave that address, that would be entirely in place and in accord with audience expectations. On a Ted Talk, the audience would notice something amiss and become bored.

                  At three minutes he congratulates the audience for agreeing with him that people are shaped by both nature and nurture (after he heavily prompted them to do so.) This is Ellen Degeneres flattering her dumb as rocks audience.

                • Cavalier says:

                  Yes, just as I feared. You have no idea what 115 IQ looks like, and you have less idea what 100 IQ looks like.

                  Furthermore, and I don’t say this lightly, Sapolsky is great… even though he’s a Boas-acolyte Jew biologist and primatologist.

                  > Short sentences, simple familiar concepts, simple examples. You tell me he is addressing the intellectual elite? Not in the first three minutes. Do the smart kids come in later?

                  a) Trump.

                  b) It’s the opening 3 minutes of one of the most popular classes at Stanford. What topic did you get to by the fourth minute of your CS 101 course way back in the mid-20th century?

                  c) Intelligence just doesn’t work the way you think it does. Oprah is really smart, probably smarter than

                  P.S. If the smartest aren’t in the schools, where are they? Presumably they’ll be the smartest wherever they are, so to what are they lending their great intelligence? What fields show the flurry of activity indicative of great advancement? Where do companies look for quants when they want the greatest brains and nothing but? Earth ships in the Sonoran? Idaho? Trade unions? Galt’s Gulch? If the brightest have been displaced from the top schools by niggers and Obama’s pet gorilla, where’s the runoff?

                • jim says:

                  > Short sentences, simple familiar concepts, simple examples. You tell me he is addressing the intellectual elite? Not in the first three minutes. Do the smart kids come in later?

                  a) Trump.

                  We know Trump is addressing the masses.

                  It’s the opening 3 minutes of one of the most popular classes at Stanford.

                  Ok, when do the smart kids get on the train, because this kid is bored.

                  If the smartest aren’t in the schools, where are they.

                  The really smart are screaming at demons, having been driven mad by social isolation. That the schools are not testing for the kind of people that used to be in the schools tells me that the kind of people that used to be in the schools, no longer are. The moderately smart are at engineering in Berkeley. But does not seem to me that the moderately smart are attending this Stanford professor’s course, or if they are he did not address them in the first three minutes.

                  What topic did you get to by the fourth minute of your CS 101 course way back in the mid-20th century?

                  They did not have computer science back in the mid twentieth century, and I recall my physics course opening up with the speed of light being constant regardless of the motion of the observer, though it is a long time ago, so I may be misremembering it. Indeed, if they opened up with crap like this, I certainly would not remember it.

                  There is nothing in the first three minutes that would give Ellen DeGeneres’ audience a problem.

                  I repeat, and you keep not answering: Today, the most IQ loaded university entrance test is the quantitative part of the LSAT. And it is just not that hard. Ten percent or so of the population max that out. The quantitative part of the LSAT asks you questions about triangles, where university entrance tests used to ask you questions about the intersection of a plane and a cone. The tests are just obviously way dumber today. Most Harvard students could not pass the old voter literacy test, let alone the old university entrance test. Dumber tests, therefore dumber ruling elite.

                  The smart people are inappropriately excluded. He says inappropriate exclusion starts at IQ 133, but I think the problem has gotten worse over time, that inappropriate exclusion used to start at 140 when our existing elites were students, but now starts at 115.

                • Cavalier says:

                  You’re capable of winning any argument.

                • jim says:

                  My killer argument, to which you have not responded, is university entrance tests. Every time universities became more inclusive, the difference between elite and non elite universities got larger, yet at the same time, the elite universities and non elite alike dumbed down their entrance exams.

                  Now progs can say “oh, we don’t do latin and greek and the march upcountry any more because we do much more important and relevant stuff, like hating dead white males and hating them more each year” but the material of the only remaining IQ loaded entrance test, the quantitative part of the LSAT, is an idiocracy style version of the tests they used to give: IQ test questions about triangles, where they used to have IQ test questions about the intersection of a cone and a plane.

                  The reading level of elite converse does not accurately reflect the IQ level of the speaker, but it does accurately reflect the IQ level of the speaker’s community, and the reading level of elite converse tracks the IQ level of university entrance exams. Our elite is less and less selected for IQ.

                • Cavalier says:

                  Because they’re irrelevant. The refinedness of your language isn’t 100% determined by your IQ. In fact, it probably isn’t even the primary factor. You also have to want it. And whether you want it is determined by whether or not it’s high-status to talk in a refined, sophisticated way.

                  And there’s something else: the medium through which you learn your language affects the dialect of the language itself. If you learned your dialect of English from the TV set, you would grow up speaking “TV-flavored” English. Books, same. Newspapers. Here’s where it gets funky: advertisements, blog posts, comments, Twitter.

                  Some idiosyncracies introduced by texting never made into mainstream spoken English because they were mostly abbreviations of existing words, and because it just sounds stupid to say out loud things like “btw” or “inb4” or “lol”. But comments and Twitter, they’ve had an impact. Haven’t you noticed that people are now dropping the subject from their sentences? Instead of “We went to the store today.” It’s “Went to the store today.” Advertisements, I think, are responsible for the dropping of “that”.

                  I grew up reading old books, and surrounded by friends and peers of unremarkable intellect. In fact, I was deliberately sent through the public school system to get acquainted with stupid people. And yet I spoke and wrote in multi-layered, sophisticated, complex ways. At 10 I maxed out the adult informal IQ language test they gave me. None of my teachers ever really understood any of the arguments I was making. I never started sentences with “and”. I would use lots of commas, semicolons, Oxford commas, and wonderful diction. (Maybe I still never not use Oxford commas.) Sometimes, when the mood strikes, and I’ve been reading a lot of old books, it comes back out. But nowadays I often just type whatever the fuck I’m thinking about and I don’t even bother to proofread, let alone pore over and over my written product as Darwin did in the 20-something years he spent developing and refining ONE BOOK, On the Origin of Species.

                  There’s your answer: everyone everywhere, including the elite, used to learn English from the KJV Bible and the other great works, and even if you were a stupid gutter rat you’d at least learn the reigning state religion in high-end English words from its pages in school or by your mother or at Sunday church service, or wherever. And people would quote scripture in high-end English verse to provide moral guidance for this or that. And now everyone everywhere, including the elite, learns their English from TV, video games, Harry Potter, their SJW preachers, blogs, the chans, and 15-minute shitposts like this one. I just re-read this comment and there are I few improvements I might make but I just don’t give a damn.

                • jim says:

                  That is plausible, but I keep saying: Look at the university entrance tests, which test level parallels elite diction.

                  Every time they made things more “inclusive” elite diction got simpler – and university entrance tests also got simpler.

              • viking says:

                yeah obviously we have stabilized pockets of hi IQ, but its not nearly as neat as make out. I had jay man calculate what percent of cog elites are born to proles and though he discounted several inputs I think would increase though number he still came up with at least 50%. As you imply I will grant some of those will not be stabilized cog elites.Though eventually they will marry at university into stabilized elites families and prevent decay.
                However you seem to think every bright kid already applies to harvard they dont. My family for instance only seldomly goes to university but we have thrown 130 and better consistently for a long long time, because of that I am much more familiar with what the other classes are like than most people with my IQ.Murray and Herrnstein were only correct to an extent for various reasons a lot of particularly white kids dont bother with the sats, they may be from cogelite blue collar families that know about blue collar jobs that pay 200-300k a year for 35 hr weeks,they may be from rural communities that they find too attractive to leave, some are actually simply too intelligent for school as it is currently set up and flounder or underachieve. The fact of the matter is even if exit were possible a population of the ivy league would not survive, a nation of serfs or even nigger apartheid would not survive its an open invitation to leftism.
                niggers must go and the largest stable patch size is an ethno nation. from there you work on your tails

  6. Eli says:

    Well, from what I’ve learned, there are actually 2 problems:

    1) Lack of clear, upfront prices. Same procedure will cost differently for an insured person vs uninsured person, sometimes something like 10x more. That is, prices are negotiated, and the big insurers (Big Money), gets an extremely high leverage, effectively making them into oligopsonies, able to buy services at an extreme discount, occasionally even below the cost of the service itself, which forces hospitals to seek compensation through charging exorbitant fees from individuals. This is not the Obamacare problem, but any system that ought to replace it should address this problem.

    2) The government, by subsidizing the insurance plans for white trash, the hispanics, and the niggers is making healthcare less accessible to middle class. Same problem that Soviet Union had: in theory, everyone should get everything, but the reality is that resources are limited, hence the crappy goods and the huge line. This is the Obamacare problem.

    Notice, in both cases the insurance companies are benefiting, but in the Obamacare case — tremendously. Interestingly, the original plan for Obolacare was to put the insurance companies outside of the subsidy, but the insurance companies put up a great fight via lobbyists, and a deal was made to make them not only not lose money, but to benefit. I don’t think that making healthcare government-covered would’ve been a better solution. It seems it would’ve become (given the ever growing bureaucracy) a major liability, and an even bigger drain for the US that its current form.

    So, I’m all for getting rid of Obolacare. But whatever replaces it has to make prices for procedures well-defined, to not give Big Money advantage over individuals. Obviously, if Trump is serious about fixing it, would have to fight the insurance companies and their lobbyists. And they won’t spare money for the bad PR, showing dying children.

    • jim says:

      Insurance is only quasi private. Quasi governmental organizations are the worst kind, exercising state power without the inconvenient apparatus that makes bureaucracies directly answerable to president. Genuine privatization of insurance would be an improvement, but Krugman’s program of bringing all insurance under direct government control would also be an improvement.

      Hugely punitive surprise prices are a result of insurance company policy: They don’t want people paying cash for medicine directly out of their own pocket. But we see the best value for money in systems where affluent people usually do pay for medical care in full directly out of their own pocket.

  7. Dave says:

    I just went to a walk-in center, and the doctor told me to go to the ER. At the ER, they said I should have a primary care doctor. Why? Every time I seek medical attention (about once every five years), I have a real problem and usually need to go to the ER anyway (though this time it turned out to be pneumonia that was already clearing up, and nerve pain that they won’t prescribe effective drugs for because I might get addicted).

    What happens if you get an outrageously large bill and don’t pay it? In my experience, nothing happens, they eventually just give up and stop sending notices. I see nothing but pride keeping (some) white men off the moocher train.

    • viking says:

      depends in idaho they will sue you and if you have any property attach it after they win a judgement
      in new york they will take a write off and ruin your credit.Not having good credit prevents you from taking advantage of the system like buying a house starting a business etc when you have a 750 – 800 credit score they literally beg you to take their money for practically free. I was given a personal loan ar 1.5% for five years which I bought a truck with, i bought a house with a 3.125% loan thats less than real inflation I turned it into a three family with a 3.5 % refi a couple years later now my rents cover the mortgage and every other expense i have and I get the lower three floors for free plus a huge tax advantage against other income. I harvest my idaho property for timber I can always because of good credit leverage assets to get other assets or often just give my word will pay . I wont lay out my entire life but suffice it to say theres a reason some parents clean up there kids messes until they get these things figured out its the difference between everything.

  8. Pseudo-chrysostom says:

    How bout those cucks not (((voting))) to deface the symbolic representation of the obama legacy doe.

  9. John Morris says:

    I think your three comparisons don’t scale to the U.S. In India even the poor are smart enough to know there are so bloody many of them there is no way they get top notch medicine given the wealth available in India, same probably goes for Thailand. Singapore isn’t going to have the same large percentage of eternal wards of the State like we have here in the U.S, plus the plebs can’t really vote themselves largess.

    Here we have millions and millions of essentially dead end people who are convinced that it is their birthright to have medical care equal to what Trump or Mark Zuckerberg can have. There is of course insufficient wealth on the Earth to actually make that happen but they can demand we maintain the illusion of it and that is expensive enough.

  10. Alrenous says:

    America used to have a system that didn’t require the government to be overtly classist, and allowed the poor to have ridiculously affordable healthcare – premiums of like $15 a year adjusted for inflation, stuff like that.

    http://freenation.org/a/f12l3.html

    There was no possibility of this growing to be single payer anything. So of course it had to go. Thus we have an AMA guild monopoly, charging, predictably, monopoly prices.

  11. Glenfilthie says:

    There is NO problem with health care. It is a simple market of supply and demand. There isn’t enough to go around so you can do one of two things: let the market take care of it, or ration it. The gubbiment is trying to make a show of fairly rationing it to appease social justice warriors and the lower class idiots that vote for them.

    This is all well and good until THEY get sick. Here in Canada, NDP progtard and pedophile Gassy Jack Layton pushed universal health care all the way – and yet when that scabby son of a whore came down with cancer, he was off to the posh private clinics in the USA. Ditto for our former fwench Swine Minister, Jean Poutine Cretin.

    The key to a GOOD health care plan is to legislate it so that it applies to the rich and politically connected – the kind of guys that won’t stand in line behind imported niggers and welfare freeloaders. If they are forced to have skin in the game you can be assured a better plan will result.

    • Cavalier says:

      “It is a simple market of supply and demand”

      How quaint; I hadn’t noticed. Pray tell, what happens to me should I choose not to pay 999 dollars for a bag of saline?

      • Glenfilthie says:

        Then somebody who WILL pay it gets it. Or you can buy it from somebody who will sell it for less. I think we can both agree that it should not go to the Somali with the 65 IQ that is taking full advantage of a program he paid nothing into.

        Shit like that is why a bag of Saline goes for $999.00

  12. […] Jim also has some more notes on Fixing healthcare. […]

  13. Pseudo-chrysostom says:

    Ryancare failed because he tried to fuck the low class and middle class fairly and equally, when he should have just been fucking the lower class.

Leave a Reply