Aceticon

Ju$tice.

THIS is the peer review process.

Not at all - re-read the last one.

Not having to pay for Healthcare Insurance means it's significantly cheaper for a person to do personal life projects that take months or years with little or no income, like getting further education or starting your own company, because your savings (or income from part time work) mainly have to cover housing and food, not Healthcare Insurance (which is almost as costly as housing, more so for people with pre-existing conditions)

It's easier to change your career and even your life in general when you don't have that extra cost of Health Insurance (and hence have a longer "runway" for your new situation to take off and become self-sustainable, as your money will stretch more).

As somebody who has by now lived in 2 countries with Universal Healthcare I can answer that:

• It's for people who want faster access to non-emergency medical treatment than the public system will provide.

So if you want to not to have to wait months for specialist appointments and surgery and you can afford it, you get Healthcare Insurance. This even more so for aesthetic and run of the mill dental treatment - the Public isn't going to, for example, just put you in front of the queue to give you an implant unless it's deemed necessary because of your health, so if your concern is about your appearance you'll have to wait years or it won't even be covered.

Mind you, the whole thing is still backed by the Public Healthcare System: if during a surgery at a private hospital you have massive complications they'll generally transfer you to a Public Hospital.

Further, even in the Private everything is way cheaper because of the massive competition from the Public System, plus the Public even uses its leverage to keep the prices of more common medicine low (basically since most of the prescriptions are done by doctors in the Public System, for things were there are multiple options the most expensive stuff doesn't get prescribed unless it offers enough benefit versus the cheaper options to justify it, so for example things like Insulin are way cheaper if you get it without a prescription from a Public System doctor and free or near free if you do because the State pays most or all of the price)

Anyways, the single biggest benefit of Universal Healthcare which the "free market is the best" (in this case it isn't: in general the free market optimizes for profit, not for outcomes, and further, in this domain people will pay whatever it takes to survive and don't actually have the expertise to judge the quality of treatment and know the availability of other options, so there is no natural free market here) crowd forgets is the peace of mind and freedom Universal Healthcare gives:

• if you lose your job, you're still fine even if you have and accident or get sick
• if you want to change jobs you have total freedom as you won't be without Healthcare for you and your family in the period between jobs
• if you need or want to stop working on a regular jobs (because you want to start your own company or want to take a sabatical or want to go back to school and get a degree) you can without losing your Healthcare coverage during that period and it's going to be way cheaper than if you had to pay Health Insurance (and copays) during that time.

Private Healthcare Systems are very much prisons that keep people tied to traditional jobs,

Meanwhile the NYC Police will be opening an emergency phone line exclusive for CEOs who feel threatened or harassed.

That's definitely going to convince people in general that the Police "works for the community" and that they should "trust the Police".

Just gotta wait for the imaginary plane.

But people do stop believing money has value, or more specifically, their trust in the value of money can go down - you all over the History in plenty of places that people's trust in the value of money can break down.

As somebody pointed out, if one person has all the money and nobody else has money, money has no value, so it's logical to expect that between were we are now and that imaginary extreme point there will be a balance in the distribution of wealth were most people do lose trust in the value of money and the "wealth" anchored on merelly that value stops being deemed wealth.

(That said, the wealthy generally move their wealth into property - as the saying goes "Buy Land: they ain't making any more of it" - but even that is backed by people's belief and society's enforcement of property laws and the mega-wealthy wouldn't be so if they had to actually protect themselves their "rights" on all that they own: the limits to wealth, when anchored down to concrete physical things that the "owners" have to defend are far far lower that the current limits on wealth based on nation-backed tokens of value and ownership)

And further on point 2, the limit would determined by all that people can produce as well as, on the minus side, the costs of keeping those people alive and producing.

As it so happens, people will produce more under better conditions, so spending the least amount possible keeping those people alive doesn't yield maximum profit - there is a sweet spot somewhere in the curve were the people's productivity minus the costs of keeping them productive is at a peak - i.e. profit is maximum - and that's not at the point were the people producing things are merelly surviving.

Capitalism really is just a way of the elites trying to get society to that sweet spot of that curve - under Capitalism people are more productive than in overtly autocratic systems (or even further, outright slavery) were less is spent on people, they get less education and they have less freedom to (from the point of view of the elites) waste their time doing what they want rather than produce, and because people in a Capitalist society live a bit better, are a bit less unhappy and have something to lose unlike in the outright autocratic systems, they produce more for the elites and there is less risk of rebelions so it all adds up to more profit for the elites.

As you might have noticed by now, optimizing for the sweet spot of "productivity minus costs with the riff-raff" isn't the same as optimizing for the greatest good for the greatest number (the basic principle of the Left) since most people by a huge margin are the "riff-raff", not the elites.

In Soviet Russia B-52 owns you.

Zionism is as much "Jews" as Nazism was blue-eyed blonde people: they're both very similar ethno-Fascist extremely-racist ideologies which glue themselves to an ethnic group claiming to represent them even while plenty of members of that ethnic group very overtly say "They do not represent me".

Never believe Fascists when they claim to represent a nation (in the case of the traditional Fascists) or a race (in the case of the ethno-Fascists). In fact, the more general rules is "Never believe Fascists".

Studies have shown that something as simple as being tall makes people be more likely to be looked towards as leaders.

By that definition all "Industrial Associations" would not be capitalist.

Personally I would be wary of telling people they should trust the words of the spokespersons of most of them.

There are more than one way in which the elites and near-elites organise to advance their interests and IMHO The Guardian is very much The Voice Of The English Upper Middle Class.