Total Posts:27|Showing Posts:1-27
Jump to topic:

Obama's Healthcare Overhaul

wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2009 8:52:10 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Here's where we discuss the U.S. government's expanding into the Healh Insurance industry (and possibly the Healthcare Industry).
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2009 8:58:23 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Great topic, wjmelements.

I beleive that there is nothing wrong with not having insurance, as I intend never to buy any myself.

Second, should the United States create a European-ish system, it would produce vastly fewer cures and improvements in treatment. The U.S. currenlty discovers 90% of the worlds new medicines. I attribute this to our privatised medicine and our being the only country left without NHC.

Third, I propose that Europe eradicate their NHC, so that the U.S. would not have to carry as much weight in the innovation industry. This new foreign competition may lower the costs of new medicines, as well as allowing our new medicines to have a lager market.

I propose that government having a hand in health insurance will only lead to them having a hand in the healthcare industry itself. Obama proposes to "cut healthcare costs", and insurance cannot do this without telling hospitals what to be paid. So, this will only lead to a NHC system.

Your thoughts?
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2009 9:43:28 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
And all for the LOW COST of over a TRILLION DOLLARS!!!
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2009 9:48:21 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
I don't think the opposition should argue about costs as much as innovation.

Should said Healthcare Insurance Overhaul fail, we'd have more uninsured than before.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2009 9:57:53 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/20/2009 8:58:23 AM, wjmelements wrote:
I beleive that there is nothing wrong with not having insurance, as I intend never to buy any myself.
-Well... if you lived in Massachusetts, you would be required to have health insurance. You will probably be suprised to know that Mitt Romney is the cause of this.
Second, should the United States create a European-ish system, it would produce vastly fewer cures and improvements in treatment. The U.S. currenlty discovers 90% of the worlds new medicines. I attribute this to our privatised medicine and our being the only country left without NHC.
-Agreed
Third, I propose that Europe eradicate their NHC, so that the U.S. would not have to carry as much weight in the innovation industry. This new foreign competition may lower the costs of new medicines, as well as allowing our new medicines to have a lager market.
-That would never happen.
I propose that government having a hand in health insurance will only lead to them having a hand in the healthcare industry itself. Obama proposes to "cut healthcare costs", and insurance cannot do this without telling hospitals what to be paid. So, this will only lead to a NHC system.
-Agreed.
Your thoughts?
-The gov't should stay out of the private sector, especially insurance. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are good examples of the gov't messing up big time in the insurance industry.
-Too much gov't spending... way way too much gov't spending.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2009 3:01:59 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I think it is a good idea, though I'd have to know more about it before I get into detail.

The one big problem I've seen with his plans is that he thinks having the government run healthcare program won't cause undue damage to the private insurers. It clearly will, because it will make a huge monopoly, much like you see in Canada.

Now, I'm all for a big focus on public health care, but I think private health care can be used to benefit the publicly run health care. I'd be interested in seeing how Obama would use the private sector in order to further the public sector, because if you are going to set up such a system, you need those two to work in tandem.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2009 3:07:15 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/20/2009 9:57:53 AM, Nags wrote:
At 6/20/2009 8:58:23 AM, wjmelements wrote:
I beleive that there is nothing wrong with not having insurance, as I intend never to buy any myself.
-Well... if you lived in Massachusetts, you would be required to have health insurance. You will probably be suprised to know that Mitt Romney is the cause of this.

That is surprising, but I don't hold Republicans to high standards on economic policy. They are incapable of eliminating government (See Bush Era).
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
JunkActivism
Posts: 4
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2009 12:26:09 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
I feel like all we do is we keep treating the symptoms of the health care issue instead of treating the disease.

IMO, the "disease" here mainly revolves around the greed in Big Pharma and the Insurance companies. A doctor who is growing more and more disgusted by the current system said you can probably take everyone in charge of the whole health care mess and stick them in a single room...in fact this probably happens often since you've got all of these very powerful people in bed together.

Anyway, I think we don't put enough focus on wellness and holistic medicine. We don't put enough effort in healthy habits and answering the question: How can we make healthcare so good, cheap, and widely available that we don't NEED all of these drugs they advertise on Television, and NEED all of this insurance?

Some of the best healthcare I've ever gotten was in the 3rd world when I was living abroad. And I don't mean "best" necessarily as best quality, but I mean doctors who cared about their patients and relied on providing the best job possible for the least amount of money possible...why can't we have that here? Where is the poison in the system that keeps our doctors focused on patients and instead focused on money?

It's just too darn profitable to have all of these insurance middlemen controlling how health care is done, and it turns our doctors into Insurance claims professionals and pill pushers. I don't even really blame the doctors, I don't see them as the cause, I see it as a symptom of how the system has been organized... and I just don't see government as the answer unless they can break up these Insurance and drug cartels.
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2009 1:24:26 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/24/2009 12:26:09 AM, JunkActivism wrote:

IMO, the "disease" here mainly revolves around the greed in Big Pharma and the Insurance companies.

Erm no. If they were allowed to run without regulation costs would be much cheaper. :) Government action raises the costs.

Anyway, I think we don't put enough focus on wellness and holistic medicine.

Usually because it is unsupported empirically. At best the 'patient/practitioner relationship' is a good placebo. And they tend to be methods that capitalise on that. It's not the method they use itself per se.

We don't put enough effort in healthy habits and answering the question: How can we make healthcare so good, cheap, and widely available that we don't NEED all of these drugs they advertise on Television, and NEED all of this insurance?

Erm. Remove Government intervention. :D The issue is not that drugs are advertised - clearly there is a market for them. If people choose not to live healthily, in those instances where such choices matter, so be it. :D Health insurance should be for emergency care - once again Government intervention is what makes that currently not the case.

Some of the best healthcare I've ever gotten was in the 3rd world when I was living abroad. And I don't mean "best" necessarily as best quality, but I mean doctors who cared about their patients and relied on providing the best job possible for the least amount of money possible...

Sooooo. Not really best. The purpose of medical care is not making friends. Give me a 'cold' bedside manner with high level of expertise over the opposite any day.

why can't we have that here? Where is the poison in the system that keeps our doctors focused on patients and instead focused on money?

Erm. Because they don't want to be your friend. It's not a social club.

It's just too darn profitable to have all of these insurance middlemen controlling how health care is done, and it turns our doctors into Insurance claims professionals and pill pushers.

Yar..again that's not really inherent. Plus if the 'pills' are what is the cure - then obviously that's valid.

I don't even really blame the doctors, I don't see them as the cause, I see it as a symptom of how the system has been organized... and I just don't see government as the answer unless they can break up these Insurance and drug cartels.

Almost there. Insurance companies and doctors/hospitals are forced to act via the type of regulation imposed. The solution is not removing those not responsible.
LB628
Posts: 176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2009 12:32:03 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
While I think it would be preferable to have private healthcare, at the point where it is considered good policy for health insurance providers to deny service to their customers, the current system is pretty clearly broken.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2009 7:24:23 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/24/2009 12:32:03 PM, LB628 wrote:
While I think it would be preferable to have private healthcare, at the point where it is considered good policy for health insurance providers to deny service to their customers, the current system is pretty clearly broken.

That's where it becomes necessary for people to overlook contracts before they sign or take insurance companies to court in massive class actions. That requires no overhaul.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2009 4:53:27 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Are all the liberals really silent? Surely, there is SOME supporter of this mess out there.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2009 5:51:06 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/25/2009 4:53:27 PM, wjmelements wrote:
Are all the liberals really silent? Surely, there is SOME supporter of this mess out there.

More supporters of the new 'mess' than the old one. I think what, nearly 3/4 of Americans believe there should be healthcare overhaul?
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2009 6:33:33 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/25/2009 5:51:06 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 6/25/2009 4:53:27 PM, wjmelements wrote:
Are all the liberals really silent? Surely, there is SOME supporter of this mess out there.

More supporters of the new 'mess' than the old one. I think what, nearly 3/4 of Americans believe there should be healthcare overhaul?

But none of them have any idea how to do it... i don't think any proposed government system can make the healthcare system better. I'd just like for courts to enforce insurance contracts... but nothing else seems necessary.

And btw, popular opinion is usually not justified.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
warneford
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2009 5:32:18 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Personally I believe that health care is a right, like state-sponsored education and suffrage. I agree that the current system is broken, the system we have is unsustainable as costs are increasing faster than inflation. Despite the low inflation rates we have seen from high productivity increases during the long boom, then high consumer debt levels now that keep spending down, health care costs will continue to outpace inflation should inflation creep back up to 3 or 4 percent. Economically this will continue to eat a greater portion of our GDP. So, to those that oppose a government-supported health care option, which ironically is taking a smaller and smaller foothold in the current legislation in congress, what proposals do you have to halt rising costs? The health care legislation itself is still such a myriad of proposals it cannot be effectively or ethically criticized yet, that will have to wait for it to firm up over the August congressional recess.

In terms of universal health care stifling innovation, I find trouble believing that should this reform come to pass, funding for research will dry up. If you believe that this proposal rings the death-knell for all private health care in America, then I suppose the leadership we have had in innovation might be forfeited. But I personally believe private health-care will endure this legislation, since there is a precedent of government operations competing with the private sector, the U.S. postal service existed for years as the sole messenger, yet there was still a niche for Fedex and UPS to fill, and provide a higher quality service for more money. In the same way, municipal subway systems can compete with private taxi companies, because they serve different segments of the same service. I think private health-care will remain viable against a state-supported option because those who can afford it will like the speed and luxury that they can get from that option. So there will be a more limited amount of money for private research, yet that won't be an issue since federal funding will likely increase to foster continued medical research in universities and other laboratories.

However, I do not feel the innovation argument and government-takeover argument are equal to the human cost that 50 million uninsured Americans weigh upon us. And regardless of the government-supported health care option, we need reform, digitizing medical data and reigning down costs are vital to the improvement of our medical system, which according to WHO report ranks an abysmal 37th globally, yet ranks first in the world by per capita costs.

I've also grown weary of those yelling 1 TRILLION (where were you guys when we passed a 680 billion Medicare package in 2006 with no real funding?). If we can get the whole population insured in some form, we can get preventative care to take precedence, which WILL reduce costs over the long term. This is not a negligible point, since many of the 50 million uninsured are high risk candidates for chronic conditions such as heart disease or lung cancer. Remember that under the current system the uninsured are still treated in life-threatening situations, and that cost is transferred to everyone's premiums, so preventive care will reduce these costs.
tribefan011
Posts: 106
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2009 6:20:22 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/20/2009 8:58:23 AM, wjmelements wrote:
Great topic, wjmelements.


Second, should the United States create a European-ish system, it would produce vastly fewer cures and improvements in treatment. The U.S. currenlty discovers 90% of the worlds new medicines. I attribute this to our privatised medicine and our being the only country left without NHC.

That's interesting. Pharmaceutical companies spent about 24.4% of the sales dollar on advertising and promotion of their drugs, while spending on 13.4% on research. The government also helps this research through subsidies. The National Institutes of Health are actually the biggest source of funding for medical research. They spent about $28.8 Billion on research in 2008. This clearly would not change under the public option.
Also, you can look across the world and see many medical discoveries made in countries with single-payer systems.

Profits don't always engineer innovation. Your argument just isn't true.
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2009 12:59:23 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
I'm liberal, but it's almost impossible to find clear information on what the Obamas health care reform actually entails, so I don't know if I support it or not.
So prove me wrong, then.
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2009 6:17:21 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/10/2009 3:48:46 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Obama is basically offering a public option for Health Insurance.

So it's still optional, and you still pay it, it's just run by the government?

As long as it has to go even or make a profit, that should be fairly uncontroversial.
So prove me wrong, then.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2009 11:44:58 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/10/2009 6:17:21 AM, regebro wrote:
At 8/10/2009 3:48:46 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Obama is basically offering a public option for Health Insurance.

So it's still optional, and you still pay it, it's just run by the government?

As long as it has to go even or make a profit, that should be fairly uncontroversial.
It doesn't have to go even or make a profit. It spends 1 to 1 and a half trillion tax dollars in the first ten years of operation, if they could subtract revenue from that to make it look more attractive, they would, but that's probably already taking into account the revenue. The "As long as" depends on a faulty assumption. It's not the government starting up a business for voluntary customers, it's a massive redistribution of wealth to whoever can be the least healthy :).
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
tribefan011
Posts: 106
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2009 12:50:17 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/10/2009 11:44:58 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/10/2009 6:17:21 AM, regebro wrote:
At 8/10/2009 3:48:46 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Obama is basically offering a public option for Health Insurance.

So it's still optional, and you still pay it, it's just run by the government?

As long as it has to go even or make a profit, that should be fairly uncontroversial.
It doesn't have to go even or make a profit. It spends 1 to 1 and a half trillion tax dollars in the first ten years of operation, if they could subtract revenue from that to make it look more attractive, they would, but that's probably already taking into account the revenue. The "As long as" depends on a faulty assumption. It's not the government starting up a business for voluntary customers, it's a massive redistribution of wealth to whoever can be the least healthy :).

Your figure isn't very accurate. The Congressional Budget office estimated the Senate bill to add about $597 billion to the federal deficit over ten years. It estimated the House bill to add about $239 billion to the federal deficit over ten years.
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2009 3:04:21 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/10/2009 11:44:58 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
It doesn't have to go even or make a profit.

Well if it doesn't, then you have subsidized insurance from the state competing with unsubsidized private insurance. Thats wholly unfair to private insurers, and is u likely to be a good idea.

The "As long as" depends on a faulty assumption. It's not the government starting up a business for voluntary customers, it's a massive redistribution of wealth to whoever can be the least healthy :).

Then the description above is completely incorrect. So we need to the start over again, with a list of what the reform actually entails.
So prove me wrong, then.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2009 3:20:30 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/10/2009 12:50:17 PM, tribefan011 wrote:
At 8/10/2009 11:44:58 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/10/2009 6:17:21 AM, regebro wrote:
At 8/10/2009 3:48:46 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Obama is basically offering a public option for Health Insurance.

So it's still optional, and you still pay it, it's just run by the government?

As long as it has to go even or make a profit, that should be fairly uncontroversial.
It doesn't have to go even or make a profit. It spends 1 to 1 and a half trillion tax dollars in the first ten years of operation, if they could subtract revenue from that to make it look more attractive, they would, but that's probably already taking into account the revenue. The "As long as" depends on a faulty assumption. It's not the government starting up a business for voluntary customers, it's a massive redistribution of wealth to whoever can be the least healthy :).

Your figure isn't very accurate. The Congressional Budget office estimated the Senate bill to add about $597 billion to the federal deficit over ten years. It estimated the House bill to add about $239 billion to the federal deficit over ten years.

Not every cost is added to the deficit, especially considering potential tax increases. In either case, even the slightest increase in the deficit proves my essential point, I'm not privy to knowledge of which estimate is accurate.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
tribefan011
Posts: 106
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2009 4:05:40 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/10/2009 3:04:21 PM, regebro wrote:
At 8/10/2009 11:44:58 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
It doesn't have to go even or make a profit.

Well if it doesn't, then you have subsidized insurance from the state competing with unsubsidized private insurance. Thats wholly unfair to private insurers, and is u likely to be a good idea.

The "As long as" depends on a faulty assumption. It's not the government starting up a business for voluntary customers, it's a massive redistribution of wealth to whoever can be the least healthy :).

Then the description above is completely incorrect. So we need to the start over again, with a list of what the reform actually entails.

I wouldn't really say the private insurers are being very fair either, if you're looking for increased competition. In 39 states, two top insurers control more than half of the insurance market. There really isn't much competition at all, making it easy for the top insurers to control premiums.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2009 8:38:33 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/10/2009 4:05:40 PM, tribefan011 wrote:
At 8/10/2009 3:04:21 PM, regebro wrote:
At 8/10/2009 11:44:58 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
It doesn't have to go even or make a profit.

Well if it doesn't, then you have subsidized insurance from the state competing with unsubsidized private insurance. Thats wholly unfair to private insurers, and is u likely to be a good idea.

The "As long as" depends on a faulty assumption. It's not the government starting up a business for voluntary customers, it's a massive redistribution of wealth to whoever can be the least healthy :).

Then the description above is completely incorrect. So we need to the start over again, with a list of what the reform actually entails.

I wouldn't really say the private insurers are being very fair either, if you're looking for increased competition. In 39 states, two top insurers control more than half of the insurance market.
You're committing the fallacy of equivocation. Wanting people to play by the same rules is very different from wanting people to receive equal outcomes regardless of how well they play.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2009 12:04:23 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/10/2009 4:05:40 PM, tribefan011 wrote:
At 8/10/2009 3:04:21 PM, regebro wrote:
At 8/10/2009 11:44:58 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
It doesn't have to go even or make a profit.

Well if it doesn't, then you have subsidized insurance from the state competing with unsubsidized private insurance. Thats wholly unfair to private insurers, and is u likely to be a good idea.

The "As long as" depends on a faulty assumption. It's not the government starting up a business for voluntary customers, it's a massive redistribution of wealth to whoever can be the least healthy :).

Then the description above is completely incorrect. So we need to the start over again, with a list of what the reform actually entails.

I wouldn't really say the private insurers are being very fair either, if you're looking for increased competition. In 39 states, two top insurers control more than half of the insurance market. There really isn't much competition at all, making it easy for the top insurers to control premiums.

"Control"? Unless these two insurers can legally stop other smaller companies from competing, then they do not control the market. Dominate possibly, but not control. And then competition is still working. But if the state goes in and subsidizes one of the actors, then competition is no longer working fairly.
So prove me wrong, then.
Rob1Billion
Posts: 1,338
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2009 2:10:12 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
1) We need transparency in our health care administration.

2) We need accountability in our health care administration.

Putting private hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, and insurance companies in charge of how health care is distributed/sold is like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse. As American citizens and as humans of the twenty-first century who have progressed culturally and morally, we deserve to know who is doing what in the administration of our health care. We deserve to be able to hold the executives involved accountable for their actions. Under our current system, executives are rewarded for ripping us off. We have earned the right of transparency and accountability of our government through hard work. It is clear that transparency and accountability in health care would bring a better economical and moral situation to our country. Morality is perpetually arguable in some senses, however only a fool would argue that it is not moral to extend health care to the sick and needy. The problem is greed; they only say that it will destroy our system because it is a convenient excuse to cover the fact that people don't want to pay for the health care of others, even if it means they themselves will be better off. That's bare human greed for you.

3) We need decisions about who gets health care to be left on no man's shoulders. Insurance companies don't get the right to dictate who lives or dies because they are insurance companies. If anyone should be the one to make that decision it should be someone who is elected (ideally no one at all, of course), not merely a successful businessman who is only accountable to his companies profits and not the benefit of society as a whole.

4) Economic feasibility. Everyone should be made as healthy as possible. Do I need statistics to show that healthy Americans are going to be more economically viable? Should I make an argument detailing how preventative care prevents costly major operations? Is it unclear how the morality of our society as a whole, in many different ways, will be improved after we all cease to worry about how and when we can get help with medical needs? Is it not obsurd to think that humans, a century from today, will consider us barbaric for even having this discussion, similarly to the way a racial discussion would seem barbaric a hundred years ago?

Redistribution is exactly what it is. The upper class has taken our social security and our pensions, and now they are after our health care (thank you George Carlin). They don't want to pay the simple people any more than they have to, and they have to pay them very little. The middle class is no longer able to save money and is being driven farther and farther into debt every year at the expense of the upper class. To think that only 50 years ago it was unheard of not to buy a house with cash, have lots of money saved up and a pension. To buy a house with cash these days you would have to already be a very rich individual, which means that the average cost of living to the american citizen is being driven up. Could you imagine a "Check Into Cash" existing in the 1950s? People say we are lazy and "living beyond our means". I don't think so. We are working more, exercising less, spending less time with our families, and getting squeezed harder and harder from the ruling class to give more for less. The richest class is growing at the expense of the middle class (i.e. a smaller and smaller % of the richest people in the world are as rich as a larger and larger % of the poorest people in the world) and these conservative idiots don't see that the struggle is either being won or it is being lost; there is no "stay how it is". They want us to stand where we are while they are dragging us backward into destitution. When I see high rates of unemployment payments I see the little man fighting back in a little way, being able to sit on his a55 and not work for a well-deserved vacation from his job. But this is the wrong way to balance the equation. If we balance it the right way, more people will be able to work, and everyone can win. The rich will still be just as happy with less money, and the poor will enjoy a higher standard of living with more aid. Greed is running this country right now and greed can only do so much for us...

the poorest 50% of the world earn as much resources as the richest 0.000005% (5 millionths of a %) of the world. Thats a seventh order of magnitude difference. Would it be so bad if the richest 1% earned as much as the poorest 50%? Don't we have a moral obligation to control this statistic, as well as an economic incentive to keep it under control for efficiency?
Master P is the end result of capitalism.