Fewer deaths? Less industry profits? No wonder the rich will never let it happen. 😡
this post was submitted on 13 Aug 2026
448 points (99.1% liked)
science
28437 readers
577 users here now
A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.
dart board;; science bs
rule #1: be kind
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
The deaths help cull the weaker and least productive members of the herd first, improving the overall shareholder value production capabilities of it as whole (higher average productivity + lower expenses taking care of most expensive and non-productive members such as the eldery = higher herd profitability), and the extra 7% of GDP going to Healthcare in comparison with countries with Universal Healthcare (14% vs 7%) means a much bigger cake for the Owner Class to take slices from.
So win, win for the rich and a great ROI for the money they spend buying politicians.
It all makes perfect sense if one's a sociopath.
From that perspective, it's an amazing idea. Makes you wonder why it hasn't happened
From the propsective of the ultra-wealthy though, it will cost them 1 trillion in profits. Then you realize why they fight it so much
For-profit healthcare is like for-profit ice cream: The point isn't the ice cream.
Saving 100k lives sounds great, but it would negatively effect shareholder value. Which makes it dirty dirty socialism, which is basically communism. Can't have that now...
$1 T... being taken by parasites. Not just any parasite but ones that prey and pray on the misfortune and deaths of others.
I'd sooner bat an eye if a mosquito got swatted than if they came across an Italian plumber. It's obscene that our laws and "leaders" allow them to walk around free.
A while ago, just after Trump's second election, I attended a rally in my city where Sanders was speaking, along with AOC. The streets were packed. Busses were packed. People from all walks of life had gathered to hear a message of resistance to a dangerous asshole, and the potential better future they could build together. Old people. Young families with children. College students and young professionals and blue collar workers. And among these reasonable, good hearted people, there was this one guy, clearly obese, neckbeard and ponytail, dressed head to toe in tacticool gear.
I think about that guy anytime I read comments like these.
So every board member of every health insurance company needs to by tried for murder by extortion of 114,000 Americans per year
That’s a little kind.
It’s so weird that anyone votes republican to me. They’re so obsessed with cultural issues that they don’t care if it burns the whole country into the ground.
I also believe that centrist democrats push cultural issues for the same reason just to keep the general public from looking towards the wealthy and the exploitation of the working people.
The only thing I disagree with in this picture is calling it fake.
The two party system is unfortunately very real and working exactly how the two parties want it to.
Politics in the US (or in fact the mainstream Politics in most countries without Proportional Voting) is like two cheeks of an arse - we get the same shit whilst we're told that, no, they're different, one is a Left Cheek and the other one is a Right Cheek.
This doesn't even consider that health insurance costs are the main factor keeping jobs out of the USA.
How many politicians and ceos have to be Luigi'd before we can act on this?
According to every politician and ceo: all of them
Apparently, maybe not Bernie.
He's the one guy who I believe would actually do what he says
Still won't.
But think of the poor insurance company CEOs whose kids might be doomed to flying commercial! 😭
And cut out the ~~oligarchs~~ middlemen? 😲
If reasonable healthcare was available without employment, the working class would feel substantially more empowered and might even consider such capitalist sacrilege as a general strike. Oligarchs can’t risk it, even if it would appear to increase the profitability of their businesses by removing an enormous part of the cost of labor. They like the chains.
1T/100k = $10m per life saved, surely people are not millions in medical debt? Am i stupid?
I'm reading that as two different metrics.
It's more cost effective - saving a trillion dollars a year
It's more medically effective - saving 100k lives a year.
You don't divide one by the other, debt isn't related.
Thanks for explaining and not calling me stupid because I did just misread.
Yeah, but then 14% of the GDP wouldn't be a source of wealth (though their ownership of Private Healthcare and Healthcare Insurance ) for the tiny slice of society who are members of the Asset Owner class.
Surelly 114 thousand more dead Americans every year is a price worth paying to allow the fatcats to take a slice of a $3.4 trillion cake that's twice as large as it would otherwise need to be (Healthcare as percentage of GDP in countries with universal healthcare is only around 7-8%)
huh. i would've thought we'd just all get standard healthcare similar to a lot of countries. Bonuses didn't cross my mind
But how does it create shareholder value?!?