Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="wkmac" data-source="post: 2826669" data-attributes="member: 2189">Some would argue that the EU has universal coverage and the US has a so-called market based system.&nbsp; Some tired to take the Lancet report and make the argument that the rise in cancer deaths were the result of the market system,but when you weighed in all other factors, such an argument seemed quite narrow and subjective.&nbsp; I would feel the same of an argument that higher cancer deaths in the EU with universal healthcare were a result of said healthcare system also narrow and subjective.And I also think the point of Peter Joseph&#039;s comments were meant as a slam against a market based system as opposed to some other form of some type of universal coverage.&nbsp; Joseph&#039;s embracing of Jacque Fresco&#039;s ideas which are mostly William Henry Smyth&#039;s Technocracy repackaged as The Venus Project where society is governed by experts and engineers plays into his opinions expressed.&nbsp; Even the idea of energy as a type currency or determiner of value that was central to the Technocracy idea advocated later by Technocracy advocates Howard Scott and M. King Hubbert (father of the peak oil theory) remain central to the Venus Project and a main point promoted by Joseph&#039;s idea of a post scarcity economy.&nbsp; I don&#039;t disagree with Joseph&#039;s critique of scarcity but his solutions in rule by expert just form one more elite not unlike the original ideas of Henri Saint Simon for which he coined the term socialism.&nbsp; How does creating an &quot;expert class&quot; (an elite by another name) really change what we already have today?&nbsp;&nbsp; I can agree with a lot of Peter Joseph&#039;s criticisms of the current models of society but where we part company pertains to his conclusions and solutions.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="wkmac, post: 2826669, member: 2189"] Some would argue that the EU has universal coverage and the US has a so-called market based system. Some tired to take the Lancet report and make the argument that the rise in cancer deaths were the result of the market system,but when you weighed in all other factors, such an argument seemed quite narrow and subjective. I would feel the same of an argument that higher cancer deaths in the EU with universal healthcare were a result of said healthcare system also narrow and subjective. And I also think the point of Peter Joseph's comments were meant as a slam against a market based system as opposed to some other form of some type of universal coverage. Joseph's embracing of Jacque Fresco's ideas which are mostly William Henry Smyth's Technocracy repackaged as The Venus Project where society is governed by experts and engineers plays into his opinions expressed. Even the idea of energy as a type currency or determiner of value that was central to the Technocracy idea advocated later by Technocracy advocates Howard Scott and M. King Hubbert (father of the peak oil theory) remain central to the Venus Project and a main point promoted by Joseph's idea of a post scarcity economy. I don't disagree with Joseph's critique of scarcity but his solutions in rule by expert just form one more elite not unlike the original ideas of Henri Saint Simon for which he coined the term socialism. How does creating an "expert class" (an elite by another name) really change what we already have today? I can agree with a lot of Peter Joseph's criticisms of the current models of society but where we part company pertains to his conclusions and solutions. [/QUOTE]

Verification