Capitalism or Socialism: Which is better?

[Verdeguay]

I generally try to shy away from the terms "capitalism" and "socialism," since the former is usually (incorrectly) used synonymously with "free market" and the latter is usually (incorrectly) used synonymously with "statism."

I support both the free market (the real kind) and socialism (the real kind). Read some of Kevin Carson's stuff, and that's pretty much my philosophy in a nutshell (I agree with him about 95% of the time).

[Sociobiology]

Capitalism is fine when dealing with societies' wants, but when it comes to a societies' needs, the greed inherent to capitalism screws people over without offering all that much in terms of the innovation it's suppose to provide.

Another core problem with capitalism is that it almost always leads to monopolys. This is not a product of "government interference" that Ancaps would want you to believe, rather it's a product of the fact that success breeds success. Anyone who wins a competition comes out stronger then they did before, and they can use that strength to win more.

Long and short of it is: private industry can provide innovation and such, but it needs to be regulated by government agencies so monopolistic corporations don't form. Further, private industry simply cannot provide needs; needs (such as water, electricity, health care) really must be provided by the public system.

Yeah americans are the most prosperous and overweight people on the planet. Capitalism really hasn't fulfilled their needs. In capitalism needs are even more in demand than wants, so there is even more supply for the needs. Just look at the 10+ different brand of stuff next time you're in the supermarket.

Monopolies [i]can and are[i] created by the government. They can form on their own as success does breed success. Mainly though, the monopolies we have seen in the past have been aided by the government at some point. Plus coercive government maintained monopolies can crush competition with force. Free market monopolies are still not safe and must remain efficient to hold their market share.

Private companies can provide water electricity and healthcare- you're just chatting balls there.

yes the east India company was entirely government created wasn't it, (sarcasm)

yea Americans are fat and wealthy , we're also sick, diseased, and homicidal, way to look out for the needs. twenty varieties of the same identical medication does not help the people that can't buy it.
Of course private companies can, anything could, they don't and thats the problem.
Arm and Hammer (Church & Dwight Co., Inc.) could flood Africa with condoms and come close to eradicating AIDS, and open up a huge new market, at very low cost to the company. They dont because theirs no money in it, or they are to short sighted to see the money in it, mean while hundreds of people die every day.
it's funny how in history once schools become public instead of private only literacy skyrockets, as if public schools were much better ad educating most people.
For any need their should be a public option, private business wants to try to compete fine.

[Mercator Terra]

Yeah americans are the most prosperous and overweight people on the planet. Capitalism really hasn't fulfilled their needs. In capitalism needs are even more in demand than wants, so there is even more supply for the needs. Just look at the 10+ different brand of stuff next time you're in the supermarket.

Monopolies [i]can and are[i] created by the government. They can form on their own as success does breed success. Mainly though, the monopolies we have seen in the past have been aided by the government at some point. Plus coercive government maintained monopolies can crush competition with force. Free market monopolies are still not safe and must remain efficient to hold their market share.

Private companies can provide water electricity and healthcare- you're just chatting balls there.

yes the east India company was entirely government created wasn't it, (sarcasm)

yea Americans are fat and wealthy , we're also sick, diseased, and homicidal, way to look out for the needs. twenty varieties of the same identical medication does not help the people that can't buy it.
Of course private companies can, anything could, they don't and thats the problem.
Arm and Hammer (Church & Dwight Co., Inc.) could flood Africa with condoms and come close to eradicating AIDS, and open up a huge new market, at very low cost to the company. They dont because theirs no money in it, or they are to short sighted to see the money in it, mean while hundreds of people die every day.
it's funny how in history once schools become public instead of private only literacy skyrockets, as if public schools were much better ad educating most people.
For any need their should be a public option, private business wants to try to compete fine.

Lol its funny because the EIC was a government created monopoly. If they didnt have a lobby in parliament then they would have never became a monopoly. Lol yet the quality of education under public schooling sucks. If there were no public schools I would make a good bet that literacy rates would stay the same as they are now. Education should be based on what people want to learn, it shouldn't be forced on them. If someone wants to be a contractor there is no reason why they should have to go to school for a good part of their life when they can go straight to work and learn their skill on the job.

[Servantium]

I generally try to shy away from the terms "capitalism" and "socialism," since the former is usually (incorrectly) used synonymously with "free market" and the latter is usually (incorrectly) used synonymously with "statism."

I support both the free market (the real kind) and socialism (the real kind). Read some of Kevin Carson's stuff, and that's pretty much my philosophy in a nutshell (I agree with him about 95% of the time).

Capitalism isn't "incorrectly" equivocated with the free market. Language evolves and what used to just mean "private means of production" is much more than that.

[The Black Plains]

Yeah americans are the most prosperous and overweight people on the planet. Capitalism really hasn't fulfilled their needs. In capitalism needs are even more in demand than wants, so there is even more supply for the needs. Just look at the 10+ different brand of stuff next time you're in the supermarket.

Monopolies [i]can and are[i] created by the government. They can form on their own as success does breed success. Mainly though, the monopolies we have seen in the past have been aided by the government at some point. Plus coercive government maintained monopolies can crush competition with force. Free market monopolies are still not safe and must remain efficient to hold their market share.

Private companies can provide water electricity and healthcare- you're just chatting balls there.

yes the east India company was entirely government created wasn't it, (sarcasm)

UHMMM... yes it was?

[The Black Plains]

Another core problem with capitalism is that it almost always leads to monopolys. This is not a product of "government interference" that Ancaps would want you to believe, rather it's a product of the fact that success breeds success. Anyone who wins a competition comes out stronger then they did before, and they can use that strength to win more.

This logic is wrongheaded. A monopoly is only a monopoly if it charges monopoly prices. In the free market, if a company charges monopoly prices then it becomes more profitable and less risky for people to compete with them, forcing them to lower their prices. The mechanic is so DAMN EASY to understand, how do people not get it!?

[The Merchant Republics]

Capitalism is fine when dealing with societies' wants, but when it comes to a societies' needs, the greed inherent to capitalism screws people over without offering all that much in terms of the innovation it's suppose to provide.

So true, hasn't been any improvement in electrical power, water provision, home construction, food production, medical care any other needs because of capitalism. /so very much sarcasm

If we want to live in reality, well see that capitalism is far better at providing these "needs" more then any other business.

Another core problem with capitalism is that it almost always leads to monopolys. This is not a product of "government interference" that Ancaps would want you to believe, rather it's a product of the fact that success breeds success. Anyone who wins a competition comes out stronger then they did before, and they can use that strength to win more.

Examples?
This is the flawed perception of the market as a race, which has several competitors running towards monopoly, and when the competitors lose they are out for good, this is simply not true historically. Indeed what happens is that the more a business is winning by the more competitors arise to match them. It is much more like a game of follow the leader played by a mob of people, some people stop running but at the same time others start.

Long and short of it is: private industry can provide innovation and such, but it needs to be regulated by government agencies so monopolistic corporations don't form. Further, private industry simply cannot provide needs; needs (such as water, electricity, health care) really must be provided by the public system.

[Bobsia]

'Capitalism' is a relative term which means different things to different people.

[The Merchant Republics]

'Capitalism' is a relative term which means different things to different people.

All terms are relative, however the standard definition would be a system in which private property is respected and capital is the primary means of production.

[Staenwald]

meh - i associate capitalism as coexisting with a minarchy. It is regulated very little too. Although economically i don't know enough to have decided what is the right path, but I tend to disagree with interventionist economist on moral grounds that government arent economists, they'd sooner commit to interventionist policies to benefit the group that votes for them, entually leading to a statist economy, rather than only do what the economy may need.

[Costa Fiero]

Private companies can provide water electricity and healthcare- you're just chatting balls there.

It can, but the idea that someone's wallet contents are worth more than their life is objectionable. I'd hate to think how many people die every year in the US because they couldn't afford hospital care or drugs.

We have vaguely similar system here in NZ. Our healthcare boasts both systems. Because locally run A&E centres and GP's cost too much for some people to treat minor injuries (but are bad enough that they cannot require a plaster/bandaid) so they head to the state run hospital emergency departments and as a result, there has been a massive influx of poor-ish people flooding emergency wards all over the country because they can't afford to go to local centers or GPs. Therefore, this creates problems because the doctors will be run off their feet and people who do really need help won't get the same level of help they might have got if the emergency wards weren't overrun with poor people.

[The Black Plains]

Private companies can provide water electricity and healthcare- you're just chatting balls there.

It can, but the idea that someone's wallet contents are worth more than their life is objectionable. I'd hate to think how many people die every year in the US because they couldn't afford hospital care or drugs.

We have vaguely similar system here in NZ. Our healthcare boasts both systems. Because locally run A&E centres and GP's cost too much for some people to treat minor injuries (but are bad enough that they cannot require a plaster/bandaid) so they head to the state run hospital emergency departments and as a result, there has been a massive influx of poor-ish people flooding emergency wards all over the country because they can't afford to go to local centers or GPs. Therefore, this creates problems because the doctors will be run off their feet and people who do really need help won't get the same level of help they might have got if the emergency wards weren't overrun with poor people.

When you have government run healthcare only the uber-rich can afford private care. And... not many people die in the US each year cuz they can't afford hospital care. Even bare-bones health insurance covers emergencies and life-or-death medication. And even then the hospital can set you up with a payment plan if you were stupid enough not to have health insurance. If you need care, bottom line is somehow you're gonna get it. You might be in a bit of debt afterwards, but you'll be alive. Maybe people die in NZ cuz of shitty healthcare, but that just doesn't happen here.

USA- Positive population growth, bitchez!

[Sibirsky]

Capitalism is fine when dealing with societies' wants, but when it comes to a societies' needs, the greed inherent to capitalism screws people over without offering all that much in terms of the innovation it's suppose to provide.

Wrong. Resource allocation is more efficient through capitalism. Doesn't matter what those resources are. It's easy for you to say living in your posh western country. Try waiting in line for 3 hours for something as simple as eggs, bread and milk and the store running out before your turn comes because your glorious planners are people.

Another core problem with capitalism is that it almost always leads to monopolys. This is not a product of "government interference" that Ancaps would want you to believe, rather it's a product of the fact that success breeds success. Anyone who wins a competition comes out stronger then they did before, and they can use that strength to win more.

Franchise laws, barriers to entry, licensing, permits etc. all government created. Success breeds competition.

Long and short of it is: private industry can provide innovation and such, but it needs to be regulated by government agencies so monopolistic corporations don't form. Further, private industry simply cannot provide needs; needs (such as water, electricity, health care) really must be provided by the public system.

The private sector is more efficient in providing wants and needs as evidenced throughout the world.

[Sibirsky]

Another core problem with capitalism is that it almost always leads to monopolys. This is not a product of "government interference" that Ancaps would want you to believe, rather it's a product of the fact that success breeds success. Anyone who wins a competition comes out stronger then they did before, and they can use that strength to win more.

This logic is wrongheaded. A monopoly is only a monopoly if it charges monopoly prices. In the free market, if a company charges monopoly prices then it becomes more profitable and less risky for people to compete with them, forcing them to lower their prices. The mechanic is so DAMN EASY to understand, how do people not get it!?

They choose not to. They have this preconceived notion that government is god. You have this anarcho-capitalist flag, therefore you are the devil. And everything you say is wrong.

Bow to the state

[Staenwald]

Private companies can provide water electricity and healthcare- you're just chatting balls there.

It can, but the idea that someone's wallet contents are worth more than their life is objectionable. I'd hate to think how many people die every year in the US because they couldn't afford hospital care or drugs.

We have vaguely similar system here in NZ. Our healthcare boasts both systems. Because locally run A&E centres and GP's cost too much for some people to treat minor injuries (but are bad enough that they cannot require a plaster/bandaid) so they head to the state run hospital emergency departments and as a result, there has been a massive influx of poor-ish people flooding emergency wards all over the country because they can't afford to go to local centers or GPs. Therefore, this creates problems because the doctors will be run off their feet and people who do really need help won't get the same level of help they might have got if the emergency wards weren't overrun with poor people.

hmm funny, if i was a priviate business aware of a mass market that couldn't afford the private care I would have dropped my prices (if they werent as low as they could feesibly go already) and earned on economies of scale.

actually, technically our lives are worth what we have in our pockets for the most part. (once i finished writing below ti kinda sounds a bit like marx- even though surprisingly i came of this by writing it without regarding marx at all, because I don't like him- im a capitalist)

In the wilderness, we don't have a right to healthcare, we'd have to cure ourselves, appeal to others or die. We could band together with others and form a tribe so that we could help each other to live. We agree that in order to work togeth it makes sense to take on specific roles.People who took on the jobs would have found life better and easier within a tribe in a time where survival was so much more of a struggle that they would propbably even risk living under an authoritative cheiftain if they were guaranteed a better chance at life. But chances are they wouldnt live there if he started killing everyone. That job then would be a condition on living there, in a time where money was more or less non-existent. This is just a money exchange of value in a time where you value your life above living under orders.

Other than that the only people who would look after you were people who valued you, and so would do whatever they could to help you because your life was important to them.

Now we have seen that each time advances have been made in a society that allow people to live more independantly but through a more voluntary cooexistance we have seen revolts against the rulers. Chieftains, kings, lords, whatever.

The introduction of money and science and medicine have made it possible that it has now become possible for people to live relatively independant lives and people themselves can help one another through payment for services. I would say that mutual trade, and the use of money are the way in which people who have no bond can interact peacefully. Perhaps money and trading is also replacement for other types of value. Say, you value your friends or lovers or childs company and time spent with you that you would do things for them for free or at your expense. Whereas i will most likely expect to be paid for something in a valued commodity- or the thing which allows me to buy commodities( money) in exchange for what i give them.

Where do i differ from marx? (i do realise this is quite roughly written, but maybe im onto something)

Capitalism is the end point- a minarchist, laissez faire capitalism. it has taken a while to realise. I don't think the systems evolved- we were capable of living under capitalism all along except that just the way it happened. But i think the changes of system are a process which followed our ability to identify what is important and our development as things went along, and the slow transition of power from a government to ourselves depends on the fact that we have slowly built up knowledge which allows us to question needless authority and tyrannical behaviour of leaders. Why is minarchist LF capitalism the end point? Because in this society, people don't force one another, they all live in acknowledgement of each others rights, and the government, whose exclusive role is to maintain individual rights for people is the moderator within it. The bourgeoise of before marx's time were most likely a minority of entrepreneurs who deserved their wealth, and a large number of people who simply inherited their wealth from families owning titles and positions in the past which would have been seen as tyrannical today. During his time they were largely entrepreneurs who were actually giving people work and as we can see today actually benefitted the lives of everyone.

Why is anarchism not the end ideal? Because that's where we started.
Why is communism not the ideal? People will only work voluntarily in small groups which they have strong attachments to each individual, or a common interest such as survival. In large groups this doesnt work. Plus, those of more wealth in a capitalist system are simply those who have been more successful in creating wealth, whether it be through skill, intellect or sheer luck. Capitalists have no more rights than workers, they simply took risks which paid off.

Now flame me or whatever and feel free to criticise or add to it...but this is a grasp at something and this is a rough idea of what i think.

how does this actually relate to what i was saying? We are all created equal (in the general scheme of things- in basic terms i mean). We have no more of an outright right than anyone else to anything because we are basically all the same. Medicine is not refused to people because they can't afford it. Medicine is has a cost, and in order to pay for the livelihoods and work and costs that go behind medicine, it has a price. Why is it expensive? Because we don't do abortions around the back of the pig sty in the mud anymore by a butcher-by-trade. We do them in a clean, sanitary environment through a safe precedure which gives optimal chances of life to the patient and leaves minimal effects.

[Staenwald]

if you cant be arsed reading it all, read the last paragraph.

[Staenwald]

oh and if you really find the cost of abortion an issue (it's an example)- im waiting behind the shed with a straw matress, a hook and a bucket. it'll only cost you £5 and ten minutes. You might die though, and if you do live- don't expect to be able to have kids again.

[South Norwega]

It can, but the idea that someone's wallet contents are worth more than their life is objectionable. I'd hate to think how many people die every year in the US because they couldn't afford hospital care or drugs.

We have vaguely similar system here in NZ. Our healthcare boasts both systems. Because locally run A&E centres and GP's cost too much for some people to treat minor injuries (but are bad enough that they cannot require a plaster/bandaid) so they head to the state run hospital emergency departments and as a result, there has been a massive influx of poor-ish people flooding emergency wards all over the country because they can't afford to go to local centers or GPs. Therefore, this creates problems because the doctors will be run off their feet and people who do really need help won't get the same level of help they might have got if the emergency wards weren't overrun with poor people.

When you have government run healthcare only the uber-rich can afford private care.

Oh, please.

Don't make your position any more stupid than it is already.

One does not need to be 'uber-rich' to afford private care in universal health care systems. Please. It's nonsense. Complete nonsense. There are numerous private hospitals throughout Australia.

yes the east India company was entirely government created wasn't it, (sarcasm)

UHMMM... yes it was?

No. It wasn't. It was granted a royal charter, but the conception was not government related.

[Staenwald]

When you have government run healthcare only the uber-rich can afford private care.

Oh, please.

Don't make your position any more stupid than it is already.

One does not need to be 'uber-rich' to afford private care in universal health care systems. Please. It's nonsense. Complete nonsense. There are numerous private hospitals throughout Australia.

UHMMM... yes it was?

No. It wasn't. It was granted a royal charter, but the conception was not government related.

monarchy- government. both held sovreignity over the country and controlled the economy. If anything government is a fairer way of doing it than royal charter, i don't know if your argument is meant to debase the whole concept of the EIC being a coersive monopoly, but it doesnt.

[Sociobiology]

It can, but the idea that someone's wallet contents are worth more than their life is objectionable. I'd hate to think how many people die every year in the US because they couldn't afford hospital care or drugs.

We have vaguely similar system here in NZ. Our healthcare boasts both systems. Because locally run A&E centres and GP's cost too much for some people to treat minor injuries (but are bad enough that they cannot require a plaster/bandaid) so they head to the state run hospital emergency departments and as a result, there has been a massive influx of poor-ish people flooding emergency wards all over the country because they can't afford to go to local centers or GPs. Therefore, this creates problems because the doctors will be run off their feet and people who do really need help won't get the same level of help they might have got if the emergency wards weren't overrun with poor people.

hmm funny, if i was a priviate business aware of a mass market that couldn't afford the private care I would have dropped my prices (if they werent as low as they could feesibly go already) and earned on economies of scale.

actually, technically our lives are worth what we have in our pockets for the most part. (once i finished writing below ti kinda sounds a bit like marx- even though surprisingly i came of this by writing it without regarding marx at all, because I don't like him- im a capitalist)

In the wilderness, we don't have a right to healthcare, we'd have to cure ourselves, appeal to others or die. We could band together with others and form a tribe so that we could help each other to live. We agree that in order to work togeth it makes sense to take on specific roles.People who took on the jobs would have found life better and easier within a tribe in a time where survival was so much more of a struggle that they would propbably even risk living under an authoritative cheiftain if they were guaranteed a better chance at life. But chances are they wouldnt live there if he started killing everyone. That job then would be a condition on living there, in a time where money was more or less non-existent. This is just a money exchange of value in a time where you value your life above living under orders.

Other than that the only people who would look after you were people who valued you, and so would do whatever they could to help you because your life was important to them.

Now we have seen that each time advances have been made in a society that allow people to live more independantly but through a more voluntary cooexistance we have seen revolts against the rulers. Chieftains, kings, lords, whatever.

The introduction of money and science and medicine have made it possible that it has now become possible for people to live relatively independant lives and people themselves can help one another through payment for services. I would say that mutual trade, and the use of money are the way in which people who have no bond can interact peacefully. Perhaps money and trading is also replacement for other types of value. Say, you value your friends or lovers or childs company and time spent with you that you would do things for them for free or at your expense. Whereas i will most likely expect to be paid for something in a valued commodity- or the thing which allows me to buy commodities( money) in exchange for what i give them.

Where do i differ from marx? (i do realise this is quite roughly written, but maybe im onto something)

Capitalism is the end point- a minarchist, laissez faire capitalism. it has taken a while to realise. I don't think the systems evolved- we were capable of living under capitalism all along except that just the way it happened. But i think the changes of system are a process which followed our ability to identify what is important and our development as things went along, and the slow transition of power from a government to ourselves depends on the fact that we have slowly built up knowledge which allows us to question needless authority and tyrannical behaviour of leaders. Why is minarchist LF capitalism the end point? Because in this society, people don't force one another, they all live in acknowledgement of each others rights, and the government, whose exclusive role is to maintain individual rights for people is the moderator within it. The bourgeoise of before marx's time were most likely a minority of entrepreneurs who deserved their wealth, and a large number of people who simply inherited their wealth from families owning titles and positions in the past which would have been seen as tyrannical today. During his time they were largely entrepreneurs who were actually giving people work and as we can see today actually benefitted the lives of everyone.

Why is anarchism not the end ideal? Because that's where we started.
Why is communism not the ideal? People will only work voluntarily in small groups which they have strong attachments to each individual, or a common interest such as survival. In large groups this doesnt work. Plus, those of more wealth in a capitalist system are simply those who have been more successful in creating wealth, whether it be through skill, intellect or sheer luck. Capitalists have no more rights than workers, they simply took risks which paid off.

Now flame me or whatever and feel free to criticise or add to it...but this is a grasp at something and this is a rough idea of what i think.

how does this actually relate to what i was saying? We are all created equal (in the general scheme of things- in basic terms i mean). We have no more of an outright right than anyone else to anything because we are basically all the same. Medicine is not refused to people because they can't afford it. Medicine is has a cost, and in order to pay for the livelihoods and work and costs that go behind medicine, it has a price. Why is it expensive? Because we don't do abortions around the back of the pig sty in the mud anymore by a butcher-by-trade. We do them in a clean, sanitary environment through a safe precedure which gives optimal chances of life to the patient and leaves minimal effects.

Of course people are refused medical care, thats the whole point of Medical insurance, save cost by refusing treatments, works very well, chemo isn't considered emergency care, so hospitals can refuse to provide it and if insurance companies can keep a person in limbo (neither accepted or denied) long enough the die so no payment. The whole profit margin of health insurance is denying care whenever advantageous. private hospitals dump unconscious patients on the street when they can't pay. the math is quite simple,
price to treat xxxxx1
projected gain from payments of expected lifetime of payment xxxxx0
solution let the person die save a buck. most people will never hear about the case so the possible cost in new revenue minor. the fact Insurance companies pay people to actually run those two number against each other is all the proof of utilizing it you need.

refusing to pay for emergency care of there own clients because they didn't call ahead for approval is my favorite,
heck even the system itself cost lives hospitals having to call to confirm a procedure will be covered before offering cost lives, emergency care is often a matter of seconds, the hospital wants to check because its profit motivated. Personally I think Hospitals that show any profit without a 100% survival rate should be fined twice the profit.

[Staenwald]

hospitals don't let people die on purpose. i didnt mean they don't refuse them on cost because they want to- it's not not economically feasible and something we have to adhere to.

[Sociobiology]

hospitals don't let people die on purpose. i didnt mean they don't refuse them on cost because they want to- it's not not economically feasible and something we have to adhere to.

they let them die of easily treatable conditions.
not treating someone properly is letting them die.

http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/171 ... _many_die/

Stabilize and bounce policies kill every day

[The Black Plains]

hospitals don't let people die on purpose. i didnt mean they don't refuse them on cost because they want to- it's not not economically feasible and something we have to adhere to.

they let them die of easily treatable conditions.
not treating someone properly is letting them die.

http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/171 ... _many_die/

Stabilize and bounce policies kill every day

LOL and the triage system is waaaay better. Just let the injuries of people in the first triage get more serious til they become part of the second triage, don't treat people in the third triage, let them die.

[Staenwald]

Too many people die needlessly of heart attacks, heart failure and pneumonia at U.S. hospitals, especially at the worst hospitals, a government analysis said.

wow..how much are they paying that analyst

also from what i see here in the UK, the poorer areas tend to be full of people in relatively poor health, despite having the NHS. Their lifestyles are simply not good enough. much can be said about the USA, where it would be expected that heart problems are high due to the large percentage of adults who are obese.

my grandfather got a chest infection and went to an NHS hospital. Whilst there, he also contraced pneumonia, and a hospital bug that he caught through unsanitary conditions, and also developed a TB mimicking virus. He survived, but he was in hospital for 4 weeks or more- he went in with a bad cold. NHS hospitals are not any better.

You should also note that medicare patients are alloted a budget , and so to keep to the budget, it's in the hospital's interest to get the patient out as quickly as possible. Medicare actually causes hospitals to be run more by cost and less by doctors than standard private medicine. This means that medicare patients are more likely to relapse and return to hospital.

http://www.medicine.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/ ... k/HAI.html

it is not economical to have large specialist hospitals in smaller counties- even with government healthcare. i'd imagine the the higher deaths are due to the patients needing to be transferred to larger more specialised hospitals, whereas more populous areas will have the larger hospital closer by.

[Mercator Terra]

hospitals don't let people die on purpose. i didnt mean they don't refuse them on cost because they want to- it's not not economically feasible and something we have to adhere to.

they let them die of easily treatable conditions.
not treating someone properly is letting them die.

http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/171 ... _many_die/

Stabilize and bounce policies kill every day

My Father has heart problems. Without treatment he could have died. The treatment to help him was very expensive and non of in my family had the money at the moment to pay for it. This is what we did. We set up a plan with the hospital x amount of money for y amount of months. Any hospital would do this. Hospitals dont care if you have the money up front. This study is sadly mistaken. If anything government run hospitals in the UK and Canada let people die because it is either "not worth tax payer dollars" or "untreatable" (like cancer).