Untitled attachment

l29ah@qoto.org's status on Thursday, 16-Jan-2025 07:12:32 JST

L29Ah

#usa #healthcare #medicine #capitalism
The U.S. healthcare system does not align with the principles of capitalism, especially when examined through the lens of the core features that define a capitalist economy. According to the general understanding of capitalism, key components include capital accumulation, competitive markets, price systems, private property, the recognition of property rights, voluntary exchange, and wage labor. While these features are commonly observed in other sectors of the U.S. economy, the healthcare system is an outlier in many respects, failing to fully embody several of these fundamental characteristics.

One major shortcoming of the U.S. healthcare system is the absence of truly competitive markets. In a typical capitalist system, competition is supposed to drive innovation, improve efficiency, and lower prices. However, the U.S. healthcare market is highly fragmented and dominated by large monopolistic or oligopolistic corporations, including pharmaceutical companies, insurance providers, and hospital chains. This concentration of market power reduces competition, limits consumer choice, and drives up costs. For example, in many areas of the country, a small number of insurance companies control the majority of the market, which reduces the ability of consumers to shop around for better coverage or prices. Additionally, healthcare providers often have limited incentive to compete on price due to a lack of transparency in medical costs.

Another capitalist feature notably absent in U.S. healthcare is the efficient use of price systems. In a typical market economy, prices reflect the balance of supply and demand, helping consumers make informed choices about how to allocate their resources. However, the price system in U.S. healthcare is deeply distorted. Many medical procedures, medications, and treatments are priced without clear transparency, and patients are often unaware of the costs they will face until after receiving care. For example, the price of a simple hospital visit or a routine surgery can vary significantly depending on the hospital, geographic location, and even the patient’s insurance plan. This opacity in pricing makes it impossible for consumers to shop for the best value, a fundamental feature of a capitalist economy.

Furthermore, the principle of voluntary exchange is undermined in the U.S. healthcare system. In capitalism, voluntary exchange refers to the idea that both parties in a transaction agree to the terms freely and with full knowledge of the consequences. In healthcare, however, many individuals are compelled to seek medical care in emergency situations or because they are required by law to purchase health insurance under certain circumstances (such as through employer mandates or government programs). Additionally, many people are forced to accept treatments and procedures without understanding or consenting to their full costs. The power dynamics in healthcare transactions, where patients often have limited options and urgent needs, hinder the free exchange of services that is supposed to characterize a capitalist system.

A direct consequence of these deficiencies in capitalism is the exorbitant cost of medical care in the U.S. The high prices for medical services, prescription drugs, and insurance premiums make healthcare unaffordable for a significant portion of the population. For instance, the U.S. spends more on healthcare than any other nation, yet it ranks poorly in terms of outcomes such as life expectancy and infant mortality. Many individuals struggle to pay for necessary treatments, and healthcare-related expenses are one of the leading causes of personal bankruptcy in the country.

In stark contrast, people in other countries—such as Canada or Mexico—can often access medical care at a fraction of the cost. In Canada, healthcare is primarily publicly funded and provides most medical services at no direct cost to the patient at the point of care. As a result, Canadian citizens typically pay far lower rates for healthcare services compared to their American counterparts. In Mexico, private medical care is available at a fraction of U.S. prices. For example, a dental procedure in Mexico may cost one-tenth of the price in the U.S., and many individuals from the U.S. travel abroad to receive cheaper healthcare services. These examples highlight how the U.S. healthcare system deviates from capitalist principles, particularly in terms of price transparency, market competition, and the basic functioning of voluntary exchange.

Embed this notice

Anarchism News (anarchismhub@todon.nl)'s status on Friday, 10-Jan-2025 11:28:33 JST

Anarchism News

Anarchist Library: **Prameń - Anarchism on the periphery**

"Author: Prameń - Title: Anarchism on the periphery - Subtitle: Struggle under conditions of emigration and war - Date: 6 November 2024 - Source: Retrieved on 8th January 2025 from pramen.io This text was written by a small group of Russian anarchists. We are not in Russia and are actively engaged in revolutionary struggle in another country.In this article we examine the current situation of the anarchist movement in the Russian Federation and in emigration, draw conclusions about i…"

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/pramen-anarchism-on-the-periphery?v=1736366592

#anarchism #bot

Embed this notice

Chuck Darwin (cdarwin@c.im)'s status on Monday, 09-Dec-2024 14:16:41 JST

Chuck Darwin

Before the Civil War, the U.S. had generally followed the English practice of granting citizenship to children born in the country.

In 1857, though, the Supreme Court had decided the Dred Scott v. Sandford case, with Chief Justice Roger Taney declaring that people of African descent living in the U.S.
– whether free or enslaved, and regardless of where they were born
– were not actually U.S. citizens.

After the Civil War, Congress explicitly rejected the Dred Scott decision,
first by passing legislation reversing the ruling and then by writing the 14th Amendment to the Constitution,
which specified that “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States,
and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

This broad language intentionally included more than just the people who had been freed from slavery at the end of the Civil War:

During legislative debate, members of Congress decided that the amendment should cover the children of other nonwhite groups,
such as Chinese immigrants and those identified at the time as “Gypsies.”

This inclusive view of citizenship, however, still had an area judges hadn’t made clear yet
– the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
In 1884, the Supreme Court had to interpret those words when deciding the case of a Native American who wanted to be a citizen,
had renounced his tribal membership and attempted to register to vote.
The justices ruled that even though John Elk had been born in the U.S., he was born on a reservation as a member of a Native American tribe and was therefore subject to the tribe’s jurisdiction at his birth
– not that of the United States. He was, they ruled, not a citizen.
In 1887, Congress did pass a law creating a path to citizenship for at least some Native Americans;
it took until 1924 for all Native Americans born on U.S. soil to be recognized as citizens.
The text of the 14th Amendment also became an issue in the late 19th century, when Congress and the Supreme Court were deciding how to handle immigrants from China.
An 1882 law had barred Chinese immigrants living in the U.S. from becoming naturalized citizens.
A California circuit court, however, ruled in 1884 that those immigrants’ U.S.-born children were citizens.
In 1898, the Supreme Court took up the question in United States v. Wong Kim Ark,
ultimately ruling that children born in the U.S. were, in the 14th Amendment’s terms, “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, so long as their parents were not serving in some official capacity as representatives of a foreign government and not part of an invading army.
Those children were U.S. citizens at birth.
This ruling occurred near the peak of anti-Chinese sentiment that had led Congress to endorse the idea that immigration itself could be illegal.
In earlier rulings, the court had affirmed broad powers for Congress to manage immigration and control immigrants.
Yet in the Wong Kim Ark ruling, the court did not mention any distinction between the children of legal immigrants and residents and the children of people who were in the United States without appropriate documentation.
All people born in the United States were automatically simply citizens.

Since the Wong Kim Ark ruling, birthright citizenship rules haven’t changed much
– but they have remained no less contentious.
In 1900 and 1904, leaders of several Pacific islands that make up what is now American Samoa signed treaties granting the U.S. full powers and authorityto govern them.
These agreements, however, did not grant American Samoans citizenship.
A 1952 federal law and State Department policy designates them as “non-citizen nationals,” which means they can freely live and work in the U.S. but cannot vote in state and federal elections.
In 2018, several plaintiffs from American Samoa sued to be recognized as U.S. citizens, covered by the 14th Amendment’s provision that they were born “within” the U.S. and therefore citizens.
The district court found for the plaintiffs, but the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, ruling that Congress would have to act to extend citizenship to territorial residents.
https://theconversation.com/long-standing-american-principle-of-birthright-citizenship-under-attack-from-trump-allies-244108

Embed this notice

Greg Sargent (gregtsargent@bird.makeup)'s status on Friday, 06-Dec-2024 07:14:51 JST

Greg Sargent

Striking: In numerous cases, Republicans or GOP-aligned industries are now admitting that mass deportations and rolling back Biden's climate agenda could prove disastrous in their parts of the country.

In my new piece, I've compiled many examples of this:
https://newrepublic.com/article/189054/trump-immigration-threats-republican-resistance?utm_medium=social&utm_source=Twitter&utm_campaign=SF_TNR

Embed this notice

Anarchism News (anarchismhub@todon.nl)'s status on Tuesday, 12-Nov-2024 03:03:40 JST

Anarchism News

Anarchist News: **Anarchism on the periphery: struggle under emigration and war**

"From Pramen This text was written by a small group of Russian anarchists. We are not in Russia and are actively engaged in revolutionary struggle in another country.In this article we examine the current situation of the anarchist movement in the Russian Federation and in emigration, draw conclusions about its readiness for revolutionary events, and share our thoughts on what should be done now. Today Russian anarchist movement is in bad situation.…"

https://anarchistnews.org/content/anarchism-periphery-struggle-under-conditions-emigration-and-war

#anarchism #bot

Embed this notice

Charlie Stross (cstross@wandering.shop)'s status on Monday, 04-Nov-2024 05:03:36 JST

Charlie Stross