You and I, and hopefully others, who show up for this conversation, on this forum, with the assumption that many people are acting irrationally, against their interests, can then have a more fruitful conversation -- cooperatively trying to figure out that question. If we get too stuck on words, the project can't get off the ground. I don't think it's wrong to engage in the philosophy, of course, especially given this is a philosophy forum, but given we're in a political thread it has the potential to slow things down to a crawl.

Yes, I'd like the discussion to progress so I try to stay concise with my answers. The reason we can have a fruitful conversation is for a few reasons: a) We're hopefully both hoping to discuss the issue and flush out the other person's ideas as opposed to challenging them on every aspect and just hoping to beat them (i.e. we are engaging in good faith.) Another reason we're able to have the conversation is that we both share common assumptions.

You've touched, I think, on the heart of the issue. But again, I don't accept the idea that because neither you nor I have a foolproof way of convincing people to change their minds or that they're being irrational, that this somehow makes us wrong in our assessment that they are being irrational (in the sense I meant above).

Ok, my issue is more when people use "rationality" as a sledgehammer which ties in with my next comment.

The question in the latter case becomes, Why do people believe weird things?

Well, I start with the idea that people are inherently situated (i.e. we're not disembodied minds capable of viewing the world perfectly rationally except in rare circumstances.) I believe that we're molded by our own unique psychological characteristics to a considerable extent, and for that reason I am extremely wary about me - with my own weird psychological quirks and weird experiences - laying down that phrase "irrational" on others when rationality, by its very nature, is universal. It would basically be me claiming that I can stand outside my own body and experiences so it's a very strong claim.

Some people just love things that I don't. I recently talked to a guy that loved drag racing. Is that irrational given the risk? You tell me (I personally think it's insane but I don't know the kind of pleasure he gets from it.) Personally, I love poker and I've been playing for a while which also entails a degree of risk. Am I irrational? I had a friend who grew up poor his entire life and had finally attained some degree of financial stability blow his savings on an expensive car. Am I - who grew up in a very different environment - going to label his action "irrational?" Yes, financially, I think we would both agree that the action was irrational but from his perspective owning a nice car finally means one "made it" or had attained a certain status - something that I wouldn't be conscious of owing to my class upbringing. He wasn't only considering the financial implications of the action when he bought it. When decisions start cutting across domains things can get very muddy.

If you have a more full proof, all-encompassing method of determining which goals are rational then let me know.

Just checking in to say - heading out to vote for Bernie now!

:cheer:

Well, let's see. Taking my disposable income, so after taxes, social security and pension contributions it looks like this:

Mortgage makes up about 33%.
Upkeep House 2.5%
Gas, water, light, phones is another 5%,
all insurances, including health insurance 5%
Car and petrol 4%
Daycare kids 3%
4 Holidays a year 17-20%
Food 10%
Clothing and birthday gifts 10%

We also just build an extension to the house and bought a lot of furniture,so the buffer is lower than I'd have it normally.

Probably the main difference is that I don't need to save for my pension from my disposable income. So I really only need savings to replace stuff if it breaks. — Benkei

You do understand that with this kind of spending you are in the elite when viewed globally? 4 Holidays a year is worth 17-20% of your your income? Who do spend 17-20% on holidays in the World globally speaking?

In the World, the highest income quintile spends on food 8,2%, so you quite are very close to them if not in them. When you add up those Holiday expenditures etc. you are quite likely in that highest quintile.

You should accept that you are in the Global Elite as, well, as I am. We can talk about how well the welfare state take cares about of our children, but we are among the elite in the global perspective.

There are studies that claim the US spends twice as much on healthcare and performs less well in medical outcomes compared to countries such as the Netherlands. — praxis

Well if you look at life expectancy we are WAY down the list. Cuba is still beating the USA (I think we spend 10 times what they do). Although healthcare can't take all the blame, the way we prove our freedom by getting super fat probably contributes.

In regard to paid leave... — praxis

Damn. If I was planning to have children I would not be raising them in this country :groan:

↪praxis Yeah. The USA is a nice place to visit.... — Benkei

Born and raised a proud American, I must ... agree.

Globally certainly, locally it's upper middle class with a fair margin from the upper class (15000 eur yearly in disposable income more and it would be upper class).

There's a difference between the quality of healthcare available and the number of people that can afford it. If people don't take out insurance and can't afford healthcare out of pocket then that's not my problem. That the majority of americans make stupid choices by not getting insurance, or waiting with it until they have a pre-existing condition, doesn't mean I should pay for those bad decisions; your statistics are therefore meaningless. I might pay more for my insurance but I have access to the best healthcare the world has to offer. — Benkei

Nope, you do not. For example, part of the reason for such dismal maternal health outcomes is lack of access, yes. But, even when you take that out of the equation, women in America die at higher rates as do their babies, and have general more health risks. Part of this is due to a capitalistic healthcare system. For example, Doctors being much more willing to conduct costly surgeries like c-sections often when they are unnecessary and pose a greater risk to the mother and baby than a natural birth would.

But even if it were true that you could in theory have the best healthcare in the world if you were just rich enough... your family income of 100k does not put you in the "just rich enough" category. Your insurance has specific providers that are in and out of network and very likely, if you decide to go out of network for a better doctor or treatment, the insurance will not cover it. If you need brain surgery, you could easily pay an entire year of your salary--which is many times more than the dismal savings you have.

Even IF you stay in network, you still have to pay a deductible and the co-pays and whatever the insurance company kind of willie-nillie decides is "elective." Like if your doc tells you your best survival/chance of not being permanently disabled is guaranteed with surgery X and the company decides that actually surgery Y is all they are okay with... or surgery X is okay, but minus elements a, b, and c.

So then, not only have you been paying through the nose all these years for this "wonderful" private insurance, but they won't cover everything you need, you still go into debt, AND they're trying to dictate your medical care to you. Absolutely none of this is rationally "in your interest."

That really depends on what metric. Most high tech? USA. Most patents filed? USA. — Benkei

The overall metric shows Sweden and Switzerland win. And they have higher standards of living! What good is being third in innovation, or even first, if we're not even in the top 10 for overall quality of life?

https://www.numbeo.com/quality-of-life/rankings_by_country.jsp

Having money is absolutely an end in itself. Money can provide security and freedom. Any working adult should be able to recognize this. — BitconnectCarlos

If money is good because of the other things it provides, it's not an end in itself, first of all.

Second, the freedom and security of any working adult should be inherently guaranteed and not be dependent on their relative wealth.

For example, part of the reason for such dismal maternal health outcomes is lack of access, yes. — Artemis

Medicaid is pretty generous and it starts as soon as a woman knows she's pregnant. Why do say "lack of access"?

I think part of the problem is drug abuse and environmental toxins. IOW it's problems that exist upstream of pregnancy.

Medicaid is pretty generous — frank

But everyone is not on Medicaid. For one, it's administered by the states, and some states have meagre funding, others are much better funded. Compare New York with Mississippi. Plus, insurance costs a lot of money when you are on your own (as far as coverage is concerned) or are in a small employee group.

"Lifestyle" is a significant obstacle. The "fried fish belt" of the southeast US feeds too much fat and too much fire-grilled red meat into the population resulting in higher rates of cancer and obesity. Add to that too much smoking, drinking, obesity, high blood pressure, etc., and it's no wonder they don't live as long as people in Hawaii and Minnesota. Good medical care for lifestyle diseases (smoking, drinking, obesity, drugs, etc.) can only accomplish so much, For one thing, the patient has to present a willing subject for improvement, diagnosis, and timely treatment, which tends not to happen with chronically unhealthy people.

Then too, some people who should and do know better and are otherwise healthy harbor 'superstitions' about their health. They don't get timely inoculations for their children or don't follow instructions for taking antibiotics. They don't like to go to the doctor, preferring quakopractors who adjust their backs. They give out reasonably good advice to other people ("see the doctor about that") but then don't do the same thing for themselves.

I had throat cancer surgery a few weeks ago, the long-term consequence of smoking, drinking, and sex (it was HPV linked -- which kind of cancer happens to be more curable). I did reform around 30 years ago, but the long term consequences finally came due (at 73). I turned myself over to a surgeon early on, and presumably have good prospects. But still, in my youth I smoked and drank too much.

Like the fried fish belters not regretting tasty fried catfish, I don't regret the nights in the bars and the many, many partners I had -- but, nonetheless, lifestyle choices affect my health.

@Benkei mentioned insurance; I've spent a small fortune on insurance at times when I wasn't otherwise covered, and so haven't neglected chronic medical problems like glaucoma, which if neglected will lead to blindness. Medicare and the part B supplement costs about 15% of my monthly fixed income. Not everyone is able to do that. I was lucky to have enough cash on hand when I needed to cough up the sometimes absurd premiums (like a cobra payment of $1200 a month for a year) -- so far, anyway.

Capitalism is one of the two roots of our health problem (lifestyle is the other one). Attached to American Health Care, like a big ugly glioblastoma on the brain, is the parasitical profit-making health insurance and intermediary administration companies. Americans have been brainwashed by the capitalists into fearing single-payer insurance (aka, medicare for all).

But everyone is not on Medicaid. For one, it's administered by the states, and some states have meagre funding, others are much better funded. Compare New York with Mississippi. Plus, insurance costs a lot of money when you are on your own (as far as coverage is concerned) or are in a small employee group. — Bitter Crank

True. It's generous where I am, so I'm being myopic. But where Medicaid sucks, there are other private resources like Planned Parenthood. If a pregnant woman looks, she'll probably find resources for prenatal care, and no emergency room would turn aside a woman who's about to deliver.

If there's a lack of access, it's out in the community blocking women from the help that's waiting.

I had throat cancer surgery a few weeks ago — Bitter Crank

Are you better now? Can you talk?

Medicaid is pretty generous and it starts as soon as a woman knows she's pregnant. Why do say "lack of access"? — frank

Here's one explanation.

I think part of the problem is drug abuse and environmental toxins. IOW it's problems that exist upstream of pregnancy — frank

So of course drug users and their babies deserve bad health outcomes. S/

My heart wasn't in this from the beginning but man, does the USA health care system suck. It would be nice to show the research that the "top of the line" healthcare still leads to non-optimum outcomes. I know people with cancer that visited the USA for treatment as a last ditch effort, because it was the absolute best available.

Here, healthcare is free for kids under 18 with no own risk. Adults have a 875 EUR a year own risk unless it's a chronic condition or if it's a visit to the GP - which is always free. They fulfil a "gate watcher" function and will send you to specialists if needed. You can never go directly to a specialist, except the physiotherapist. After that there's no co-payments or deductibles or whatever.

There's a basic insurance that's government mandated, provided for by for-profit insurance companies and prices negotiated by them with health care providers. The insurance for that is at its cheapest at around 85 EUR per month per person. You can top that off with private plans for dental care, alternative medicine, extra physiotherapy etc. etc.

The basic insurance doesn't cover everything but I've never had a situation I had discussions about coverage with my insurance company until actually this year. But that concerned one of the private plans for alternative medicine (don't ask, it's not for me but the wifey).

I think part of the problem is drug abuse and environmental toxins. IOW it's problems that exist upstream of pregnancy
— frank

So of course drug users and their babies deserve bad health outcomes. S/ — Artemis

Initiated the discussion in good faith, exited with a shrug.

Initiated the discussion in good faith, exited with a shrug. — frank

Ciao!

I know people with cancer that visited the USA for treatment as a last ditch effort, because it was the absolute best available. — Benkei

There are for specific types of cancer better resources here than elsewhere, I'll grant us that. Of course, providing you can pay for it all. Other specific cancers have better outcomes in other countries.

I used to live in a socialist democracy myself. So it was really a rude awakening moving here and suddenly hear people discuss not just the medical need to visit the ER in some situations, but whether they could afford it.

Yes on both counts; I'm on the mend, and the surgery didn't involve the vocal cords. The tonsil and lymph nodes were the sites of the malignancy, and the pathology report showed no cancerous cells in any of the margins. A 'robotic' system was used to remove the internal tissue (the "Davinci surgical robot") which is entirely under the control of the surgeon, and then the external surgery (removing lymphatic tissue) was the traditional knife and fork method. It took about 4 hours. Radiation is not necessary, ditto for chemo--for the future, as far as they can tell, but no guarantees.

The advantage of the high tech machine is that the various devices that are on the ends of the robot's digits are illuminated and include camera pick up, so the surgeon actually has a much better view of the internal surgical field than would otherwise be available.

Is this a positive medical development, or simply an expensive frill, which adds unnecessarily to the cost of medical care? I'm not in a position to say. The surgeon said he could do the surgery without the robot, but that the outcomes were better with it. Makes sense to me. The robot is steadier, doesn't get tired, can be finely 'tuned' by a computer assist (which is needed in brain surgery using a robotic device), and so on.

I had a fantasy of the surgical robot getting loose and stalking humans in the hospital hallways, over-powering them, and forcing its favorite surgical procedures on them.

Is this a positive medical development, or simply an expensive frill, which adds unnecessarily to the cost of medical care — Bitter Crank

If it keeps you out of ICU with bleeding and infection from accidental nicks from the surgeon's big fat hands, it's saving money.

had a fantasy of the surgical robot getting loose and stalking humans in the hospital hallways, over-powering them, and forcing its favorite surgical procedures on them. — Bitter Crank

Wonder how it picks its favorite.

Capitalism is one of the two roots of our health problem (lifestyle is the other one). Attached to American Health Care, like a big ugly glioblastoma on the brain, is the parasitical profit-making health insurance and intermediary administration companies. Americans have been brainwashed by the capitalists into fearing single-payer insurance (aka, medicare for all).

One of the reasons why branded drug prices are so high in the US is that, in effect, the US helps subsidize the rest of the world's global drug research and development costs. Through compulsory licensing a foreign government can threaten to invalidate an American drug company's patent in order to issue a generic. The company must choose to lower prices for much less profit, or get no profit at all. I'm not sure if this is true of medical tech, but given that published patents in medical technology in the US far exceeds that of any country (by hundreds of thousands), I suspect it is true of this facet of the industry. So there is a sort of parasitic relationship here as well. Perhaps the rest of the world have been brainwashed into reviling the American system when they should instead be thankful for it.

Good luck on your health battle. It sounds like you're in good hands.

If money is good because of the other things it provides, it's not an end in itself, first of all.

You are technically right here, but in society money is what will actually provide these things and come to think of it I can't think of any other ways of attaining freedom and security. Money is intimately connected with the two.

Second, the freedom and security of any working adult should be inherently guaranteed and not be dependent on their relative wealth.

It's nice that you believe that but we're talking about the world as it is. When american taxpayers have more money in their pockets after taxes that helps them attain freedom and security.

It's nice that you believe that but we're talking about the world as it is. When american taxpayers have more money in their pockets after taxes that helps them attain freedom and security. — BitconnectCarlos

When Europeans have adequate health care and education provided to ALL of their citizens that helps them attain freedom and security.

Am I right? Or are you? Or are we both right from some perspective? Obviously, it must be the last one, which makes statements like this entirely worthless...right?

When Europeans have adequate health care and education provided to ALL of their citizens that helps them attain freedom and security.

Am I right? Or are you? Or are we both right from some perspective? Obviously, it must be the last one, which makes statements like this entirely worthless...right?

Personally, I would pretty much always go for financial independence over having slim savings despite good public services. I understand public services are good, but the freedom provided when you have enough money to retire and then some is much preferable IMO. I favor placing my own financial future first and foremost into my own hands as opposed to hoping the government with its services can provide for me.

IMO. I favor placing my own financial future first and foremost into my own hands as opposed to hoping the government with its services can provide for me. — BitconnectCarlos

You mean in the hands of your employer, the market, and the corporations from which you buy the goods for your "freedom and security."

Thinking it's all in your own hands and only yours is pretty naive, no matter which system you choose.

You mean in the hands of your employer, the market, and the corporations from which you buy the goods for your "freedom and security."

If we're talking savings and investment then I can pretty much go with where ever I want. I can choose to risk it in the market or not. I could keep it all in a savings account or my mattress or a safe. I could bury it.

With enough money you don't need to rely on an employer.

Thinking it's all in your own hands and only yours is pretty naive, no matter which system you choose.

I take risks. I don't determine the outcome of these risks, but I choose to take them. I deal as best as I can with the hand that I am dealt.

With enough money you don't need to rely on an employer. — BitconnectCarlos

Oh, right, I forgot that being an instant billionaire is a choice everyone just has to make. How does that work? Pray at night and then wake up in a mansion or are you old-fashioned and play the lottery?

You don't need to be a billionaire. Think much, much smaller. You don't even need a million to start feeling the effects.

I understand public services are good, but the freedom provided when you have enough money to retire and then some is much preferable IMO. — BitconnectCarlos

So what if only 70% of the population can achieve that? What if only 10% of the population can achieve that?

I would estimate that no more than 40% of Americans retire with "and then some". What do you think the percentage is? There are very few extremely financially responsible people out there like @Pfhorrest. (someone who can retire and then some off of a median income). If most people are NOT financially responsible it seems unfair (and wrong?) to suggest that everyone should be.

You don't need to be a billionaire. Think much, much smaller. You don't even need a million to start feeling the effects. — BitconnectCarlos

I'm not sure you have a good grasp on how long money will stretch in this economy...