![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mallorys_cameraSapiens is a broad overview of history, so Harari’s explanation of capitalism is overly simplistic.
It is enlightening, though, in its show-and-tell of why no capitalist economy can ever be a sustainable economy. Capitalism and credit are symbiotic, and credit thrives on the illusion of infinite expansion—which, of course, is the opposite of sustainability.
I was thinking about this on my five-mile slog yesterday—yes, it’s cold, but it’s sunny, and I’ve recovered—more-or-less—from the arthritis attack.
I was thinking about this particularly in regards to the healthcare industry.
The healthcare industry in the U.S. is out of control. Presently, the excuse they’re giving for overbuilding it is that Boomers need care! We’re growing old and feeble; we need those expensive medical facilities where they can tell us specifically it’s atherosclerosis not “old age” that’s shutting us down. Then they do lots of medical tests! Maybe slip us some expensive drugs in the six months we’ve got left. A perfect business opportunity!
But what are they gonna do with all those hospitals they’re building and all that labor they’re training and all that other healthcare-related infrastructure they’re investing in after we’re all dead?
My guess is that they’re gonna invent a lot more “preventive” tests and then brainwash people into thinking they need them!
I’m thinking gluten is a perfect choice here, since apart from celiac disease, gluten intolerance exists in a scientific no-man’s land that’s half-superstition and half-correlative “science.”
Or maybe autism, which seems to exist in that same shimmery space.
So, here’s my prediction: Thirty years from now, invasive and highly expensive tests for gluten intolerance and autism are gonna be as commonplace as colonoscopies and mammograms are today!
One thing’s for sure: They’re not gonna dismantle all that excess healthcare infrastructure.
No!
They’re gonna figure out a way to exploit it for money and then convince you it’s for your own good.
###
I was thinking about this particularly in regards to the opioid crisis because I happened to be listening to a Freakonomics podcast on that subject while I was out walking.
Generally, I really like the Freakonomics podcast. It rather consistently gives me interesting insights into everyday things from an angle I’d never really looked at before.
This Freakonomics podcast was making me angry though.
Full disclosure: I like taking the little opioid holiday every now and then, and of course, I’m pissed as hell that I can’t get my hands on tramadol anymore, which was a really effective medication for my arthritis flare-ups.
Frankly, the whole “opioid crisis” pontifications reminds me of the Reefer Madness propaganda that was a big thing in my youth.
Yeah, people do die from overdoses.
What are they dying from, though?
Are they dying from substances obtained legally, or are they dying from substances obtained on the black market? And in the latter instances, aren’t they really dying from the lack of safeguards on dose, purity etc?
Back in the days when I worked for the California Department of Health, it was axiomatic that approximately 10% of the population was gonna get addicted to something, and there really was very little you could do about it.
The statistic Freakonomics quoted for opioid addiction was 30%, which is quite a bit higher. I’d need to know more about how that statistic was obtained before I buy it, though.
Personally, I’m fine with other people’s addictions, so long as those people don’t drive, operate heavy machinery or deal with children. I view it as a kind of choice—meaning the physical addiction may not be a choice but the disinclination to avail oneself of effective treatment options is definitely a choice. Although, granted—there is a bit of a negative feedback loop there.
(I would not necessarily be fine if someone I cared about became addicted, but that’s a separate issue.)
Anyway, not for a single moment while I listened to this podcast was I buying that our government and all those noble physicians who make hundreds of thousands of dollars every year by refusing to take my insurance give a shit about me and my potential for addiction. No. Compassion is not driving the response to the “opioid crisis.” The profit motive is.
The powers that be have figured out that they can make more money offering rehabs and other preventive programs than they can by taxing the shit out of opioids, though that has proven to be a very successful strategy in curbing cigarette smoking. Rehabs have a pretty high recidivism rate, estimated between 40% and 60%, and all those revolving doors mean a lot of extra money!
I suspect the real issue is that since opioids are part of the medical toolbox, there’s no model for recreational use, which means they can’t figure out a way to tax their recreational use effectively.
###
In other news, I’m worried about RTT who’s out of work and practically out of money. I can help him make the rent this month by tapping the New Car fund, but it can’t be any kind of regular thing, given that I’m an aging pensioner with fairly limited access to funds.
This has been a hard, hard year for him. He has tons of options, but I suspect he’s in such emotional retrograde that he can’t recognize them.
Now, he could benefit from therapy! Because he could benefit from benign disinterested feedback.
It is enlightening, though, in its show-and-tell of why no capitalist economy can ever be a sustainable economy. Capitalism and credit are symbiotic, and credit thrives on the illusion of infinite expansion—which, of course, is the opposite of sustainability.
I was thinking about this on my five-mile slog yesterday—yes, it’s cold, but it’s sunny, and I’ve recovered—more-or-less—from the arthritis attack.
I was thinking about this particularly in regards to the healthcare industry.
The healthcare industry in the U.S. is out of control. Presently, the excuse they’re giving for overbuilding it is that Boomers need care! We’re growing old and feeble; we need those expensive medical facilities where they can tell us specifically it’s atherosclerosis not “old age” that’s shutting us down. Then they do lots of medical tests! Maybe slip us some expensive drugs in the six months we’ve got left. A perfect business opportunity!
But what are they gonna do with all those hospitals they’re building and all that labor they’re training and all that other healthcare-related infrastructure they’re investing in after we’re all dead?
My guess is that they’re gonna invent a lot more “preventive” tests and then brainwash people into thinking they need them!
I’m thinking gluten is a perfect choice here, since apart from celiac disease, gluten intolerance exists in a scientific no-man’s land that’s half-superstition and half-correlative “science.”
Or maybe autism, which seems to exist in that same shimmery space.
So, here’s my prediction: Thirty years from now, invasive and highly expensive tests for gluten intolerance and autism are gonna be as commonplace as colonoscopies and mammograms are today!
One thing’s for sure: They’re not gonna dismantle all that excess healthcare infrastructure.
No!
They’re gonna figure out a way to exploit it for money and then convince you it’s for your own good.
###
I was thinking about this particularly in regards to the opioid crisis because I happened to be listening to a Freakonomics podcast on that subject while I was out walking.
Generally, I really like the Freakonomics podcast. It rather consistently gives me interesting insights into everyday things from an angle I’d never really looked at before.
This Freakonomics podcast was making me angry though.
Full disclosure: I like taking the little opioid holiday every now and then, and of course, I’m pissed as hell that I can’t get my hands on tramadol anymore, which was a really effective medication for my arthritis flare-ups.
Frankly, the whole “opioid crisis” pontifications reminds me of the Reefer Madness propaganda that was a big thing in my youth.
Yeah, people do die from overdoses.
What are they dying from, though?
Are they dying from substances obtained legally, or are they dying from substances obtained on the black market? And in the latter instances, aren’t they really dying from the lack of safeguards on dose, purity etc?
Back in the days when I worked for the California Department of Health, it was axiomatic that approximately 10% of the population was gonna get addicted to something, and there really was very little you could do about it.
The statistic Freakonomics quoted for opioid addiction was 30%, which is quite a bit higher. I’d need to know more about how that statistic was obtained before I buy it, though.
Personally, I’m fine with other people’s addictions, so long as those people don’t drive, operate heavy machinery or deal with children. I view it as a kind of choice—meaning the physical addiction may not be a choice but the disinclination to avail oneself of effective treatment options is definitely a choice. Although, granted—there is a bit of a negative feedback loop there.
(I would not necessarily be fine if someone I cared about became addicted, but that’s a separate issue.)
Anyway, not for a single moment while I listened to this podcast was I buying that our government and all those noble physicians who make hundreds of thousands of dollars every year by refusing to take my insurance give a shit about me and my potential for addiction. No. Compassion is not driving the response to the “opioid crisis.” The profit motive is.
The powers that be have figured out that they can make more money offering rehabs and other preventive programs than they can by taxing the shit out of opioids, though that has proven to be a very successful strategy in curbing cigarette smoking. Rehabs have a pretty high recidivism rate, estimated between 40% and 60%, and all those revolving doors mean a lot of extra money!
I suspect the real issue is that since opioids are part of the medical toolbox, there’s no model for recreational use, which means they can’t figure out a way to tax their recreational use effectively.
###
In other news, I’m worried about RTT who’s out of work and practically out of money. I can help him make the rent this month by tapping the New Car fund, but it can’t be any kind of regular thing, given that I’m an aging pensioner with fairly limited access to funds.
This has been a hard, hard year for him. He has tons of options, but I suspect he’s in such emotional retrograde that he can’t recognize them.
Now, he could benefit from therapy! Because he could benefit from benign disinterested feedback.
