I guess this is another fake deal by Trump?

2 minutes ago, toomuchbaloney said:

And yet, all Americans don't have access to affordable food, healthcare, and energy.

Please do use your time on defining what "affordable" is.

I just let the free market decide on those things. For an example, California thinks it's a good thing to keep on taxing energy and adding more taxes on top of the taxes already being paid for the "means of energy."

And Illinois is just trying to pass a bill to tax clean energy! Seriously? People who care about the environment is being punished?

https://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-electric-vehicle-fee-illinois-20190509-story.html

Edited May 13 by KonichiwaRN

2 minutes ago, Tweety said:

Because once upon a time the American people wanted to help out those with lower incomes with programs like "Earned Income Credit" where low wage earners, particularly those with dependents would get a break.  

it's one of those "American Values" things.

But yeah, people paying zero in taxes when I have thousands does get me a bit.

The monster is out from the box though. I think it's too late to change anything and we have to work with the system that we have now.

In my personal view (it is my view), things just become more complicated when you place the government in place instead of "trusting" the Americans to practice those "American values."

With my experience here in this nation (even before I became an American), I experienced countless of Americans who have helped me during my time of need.

3 minutes ago, toomuchbaloney said:

Nah, you can define affordable whichever way supports your beliefs, like you do with racism and a variety of other subjects which you seem to want to argue. I am amused that you apparently believe that health care should be at the mercy of the capitalist free market myths. 

Just a simple question to answer your "claim."

Does competition lower or raise prices for products?

Focus: "Competition." versus, "Single payer Monopoly pathway."

1 minute ago, MunoRN said:

That's how the market works in oligarchies and third world countries, but in the US and first world countries in general, the market is designed to create an incentive to provide a good product at a good price and to generally benefit the community / society in which it exists, if my business is more of a burden on society than a benefit, I would expect appropriately designed market forces cause my business to struggle.

In the example you brought up, Gilead (the drug manufacturer) is hoping to ease pressure to make their medication more available, and to lobby for an extension on the patent rights on one of the components of their drug Truvada.  

You seem to promote both a supplier-profit-driven market as well as competition.  So should patents never expire?  Or should they never exist in the first place to promote competition?

Patents? How is that even in this scenario?

A company invests "their money" to form a product: It either becomes a success or not. Patents are in place to safeguard that company (within a reasonable time frame) so that company could take in the results of their investment(s): in that scenario, their time = money.

The market? The market exists only because of supply vs demand. There are cases where supply was first and there are cases where the demand was in place first. Nobody is "forcing" people to purchase anything here in this nation. Now, how does your logic of "benefit" fit in that picture? The market could care less about "benefits" or the "good for society." Example: Gun manufacturers. Another example: Coal burning furnaces.

Gilead is trying to "ease pressure?" So you don't think Gilead shouldn't take in the proper rewards for even developing Truvada? What was there before Truvada? Did it just magically appear from thin air?

Individuals invest their time & money..taking in the risk of not having success. An idea alone does not equivocate into success in the free market. It's a dog eat dog world. When demand is no longer present (e.g: shopping malls), the supply dissolves by its own.

5 minutes ago, toomuchbaloney said:

If you are unaware or unwilling to understand that all Americans do not have access to affordable health care, energy and food then nothing I say at this point in time is going to change that choice to be ignorant of those realities. You may believe as you prefer.

So basically the argument exists here: Since you guys are not just saying it.

Does being a citizen of this nation, GUARANTEE the individual to:

a) housing

b) health care (its vast dimensions..where according to the WHO includes a COMPLETE well being of both physical, psychological, AND Social)

c) energy

d) food

😂. Good luck trying to afford and pay for that.

Edited May 13 by KonichiwaRN